Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Coventry Corporation Bill,

Thornton Cleveleys Improvement Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order of the House of 27th July, and agreed to.

Bognor Regis Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Ilfracombe Urban District Council Bill [Lords], (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Liverpool Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (NATIVES).

Mr. LUNN: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs why natives are refused licences to work mines in Southern Rhodesia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): I am informed by the Government of Southern Rhodesia that natives have received prospecting licences in the past, and that no native in a position to carry out mining operations effectively will be refused such a licence.

Mr. LUNN: Could not these mines be worked far more economically by natives than by Europeans?

Mr. MacDONALD: I should require notice of that question and give it very careful consideration before offering an opinion.

Mr. PALING: Cannot some of these mines be worked almost without capital by natives if they can get licences?

Mr. MacDONALD: If that is so, there is nothing to prevent them from getting licences.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a fact that Rhodesian mine-owners employing natives with a small percentage of British foremen become comparatively affluent?

Mr. CREECH JONES: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will consider taking steps to modify the prison regulations in Southern Rhodesia which, as framed to-day, permit of the imposition on natives in prison of 12 cuts of the lash for 29 different types of prison disciplinary offences, including careless work, conversing with another prisoner, and singing or having in his cell any unauthorised article?

Mr. M. MacDONALD: As these regulations do not differentiate between natives and persons of European descent, the matter is constitutionally one for the Southern Rhodesia Government alone, and I have no power to act as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. CREECH JONES: Is not the justification for the maintenance of these regulations that the majority of the prison population is made up of natives and, in view of the new pass laws, which will involve the imprisonment of a large number of additional natives, is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make recommendations for the modification of these regulations?

Mr. MacDONALD: The position is as I have stated it. There is no discrimination, and I have no power in the matter.

Mr. PALING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of convictions for these petty offences committed by natives has gone up enormously in the last few years, and is it not time he exercised some supervision over this business?

Mr. MacDONALD: The number has gone up roughly in proportion to the increase in the number of natives.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

ANGLO-SPANISH PAYMENTS AGREEMENT.

Lieut. Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade why, under the Anglo-Spanish Payments Agreement insurance premiums are not given equality of treatment with payment for goods or tramp freights?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): In giving priority to tramp freights, His Majesty's Government have recognised the position which existed throughout the period of exchange control in Spain and their action has prevented the trade from being driven to foreign vessels. The question whether priority should be given to remittances in respect of insurance premiums has been very carefully considered, but it has been decided that priority cannot be given in this case. His Majesty's Government have made an arrangement with the Spanish authorities, however, under which claims in Spain may be met by the insurance companies from the pesetas which have been paid into the Clearing.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION (COLLIER SHIPS).

Colonel ROPNER: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a proposal by the Brighton Corporation to build two collier ships; and whether, in view of the undesirability in the national interest for local authorities to enter the field of shipping, bearing in mind the distress in which British shipping stands to-day, he will confer with the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport upon the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I was not aware of this proposal, but it is not unusual for municipalities and private undertakings with large shipping requirements to own their own vessels. So far as concerns the Board of Trade, I am not aware of any sufficient grounds upon which the proposal could be resisted.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Having regard to the fact that the cost of dealing with such schemes by municipalities is generally very much more than by taking advantage of private enterprise, will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps that are possible to protect the interests of ratepayers?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not possible to have a tax on fresh air?

SHETLAND PONIES (IMPORT DUTIES, GERMANY AND FRANCE).

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the import duty on a Shetland pony, for which the crofter gets £3 to £5, is £25 into Germany and £22 10s. into France; and whether he will endeavour to get some remission of this prohibitive duty in the interests of the Shetland pony trade and the Shetland crofter, and to avoid the slaughter of hundreds of ponies?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the high rates of duty on Shetland ponies imported into Germany and France, but I fear that there is no prospect of these duties being reduced at the present time as a result of representations from His Majesty's Government.

BRITISH SHIPS (CONSTRUCTION, GERMANY).

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that 57 vessels, ranging from 340 to 20,000 tons, are under construction or on order in German shipyards; and, in view of the fact that this total represents nearly three times the tonnage of a year ago, what steps he proposes to take to secure that ships for British companies shall be built in British shipyards?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that the tonnage of merchant vessels now under construction in German yards includes a substantial quantity to the order of British firms, but I have no precise information regarding the number of vessels concerned. With regard to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 16th June.

Mr. MORRISON: If I send the right hon. Gentleman a list of the ships being built in Germany together with the British companies for whom they are being built, could he take some action in view of the distressed condition of British shipping?

Colonel ROPNER: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider once again the possibility of placing something in the nature of an import tax on these foreign-built vessels when they are first registered under the British flag?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We have no power in the matter, but I shall be glad to receive any information the hon. Member cares to send.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain powers to deal with this important matter? Are we to understand that this valuable amount of tonnage is to be sent abroad in view of all the unemployment that exists here?

Mr. BENSON: If I send the right hon. Gentleman figures of the exports of cotton yarn from Lancashire to Germany, will he take into consideration the question of reciprocity in trade?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I could not undertake to say I will take up any subject of that kind without consideration. If the hon. Member cares to send me particulars, I shall be glad to go into them. With regard to the placing of orders in Germany, I have no powers in the matter whatever. I do not know whether the hon. Member realises that this is one of the methods by which English firms have been able to secure payment of their debts.

Mr. PALING: Is this happening under the right hon. Gentleman's scrap-and-build policy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, it has nothing to do with it.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not one of the manoeuvres of German importers to refuse to pay debts to British exporters so that they can liquidate the cost of building these ships?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is much more complicated than that.

Mr. SHINWELL: Before this matter is finally disposed of will the right hon. Gentleman consult his colleagues in the Cabinet to see if anything can be done?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Gentleman is really out of date. We have been dealing with this matter now for nearly a year.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that they rationalised and closed down shipyards because there were more shipyards in the country than there were ships to build, will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into this business, and do something?

COAL EXPORTS (FRENCH REGULATIONS).

Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the new French regulations with regard to the selling of coal; whether these regulations will adversely affect the British coal exporters; and, if so, whether he proposes to make representations to the French Government?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. I have received a draft of the Bill dealing with the organisation of the marketing of coal in France. It will clearly have some bearing on the position of our export trade, but so far as can be judged at present, it deals only with matters of French internal economy and does not discriminate against this country. I have also seen reports in the Press of an amendment affecting shipping, but I am not yet in a position to make any official statement. I am making further inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIS MAJESTY'S CORONATION (SOUVENIRS).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Council for Art and Industry have been approached by any manufacturers for guidance in the design or designers of souvenirs and similar objects to commemorate the forthcoming Coronation of His Majesty King Edward VIII; what assistance has the council given; and whether the council has made any approach to manufacturers with a view to improving on the standard of design achieved on former occasions?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The reply to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the remaining parts, the Council for Art and Industry have recently offered the organisations representing the industries mainly concerned their co-operation in any steps that may be taken to improve the design of these articles.

Mr. ADAMS: Has anything resulted yet from that offer?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The offer has not yet been accepted, but I have no doubt that some advantage will be gained by this collaboration.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOURIST TRAFFIC.

CURRENCY RESTRICTIONS.

Mr. R. ROBINSON: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many countries impose currency restrictions on their nationals who wish to come to England as bona fide tourists; and whether, in the interests of the British tourist industry, he will make it a term of all future trade treaties that ample currency facilities shall be granted to all bona fide tourists wishing to come to Great Britain?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no complete information as to the number of countries which impose currency restrictions in connection with tourist traffic. As regards the second part of the question, I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion.

REVENUE, GREAT BRITAIN.

Mr. R. ROBINSON: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what is the estimated revenue from foreign tourists staying in Great Britain during each of the last three years?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD (Comptroller of the Household): I have been asked to reply. No official information has been compiled in respect of revenue from foreign tourists. I would, however, draw the attention of my hon. Friend to an article entitled "Trade and the Tourist" by Professor F. W. Ogilvie, the Vice-Chancellor of Belfast University, which appeared in the "Times" of 12th July last year. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of this article.

Mr. ROBINSON: In view of the importance of the tourist traffic to this country will the Government take active steps to encourage it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

STEAMSHIP "BARON GRAHAM" (SEAMEN'S OFFENCES).

Mr. BENJAMIN SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the master of the steamship "Baron Graham" landed two seamen, Thomas Morris and Robert Jones, at Havana, handing them over to the police there; that they were charged with mutiny and sentenced to 31 days' imprisonment and £12 was deducted from

their wages for costs of pilotage; that the master failed to consult the British Consul; that no entry was made in the log book; and that thereby sections of the Merchant Shipping Act referring to discipline and deductions from wages were broken; and will he take steps to see that the record is expunged and the money refunded to the men and take action against the master of the ship?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: An entry regarding the conduct of these seamen was made in the log book. They were charged with a grave breach of the peace and a minimum sentence of 31 days' imprisonment was imposed by the local court. The master's explanation of the circumstances in which he left these seamen behind in Havana without obtaining the certificate of a proper authority as required by Section 36 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1906, has been obtained and I am advised that the case is not one for proceedings against the master. I have no power to intervene on the question of the deduction of pilotage costs from wages.

Mr. SMITH: Is it not the fact that no effort was made to get the British Consul or any representative when these men were charged, and is that not an abrogation of the Act?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, my information is that the certificate could not have been obtained without unreasonable delay.

Mr. SMITH: Was it not the officer's duty to proceed to another court and to hold his men prisoners until such time as he could do the thing which the law demanded of him?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot agree with that view.

LIGHTHOUSES (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the status of the committee appointed to advise the Board of Trade on proposals submitted by the three general lighthouse authorities; and what is the composition of the said committee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The committee was set up in 1899 in accordance with an offer made by the Board of Trade to a deputation of shipowners and others to consult such a committee if the bodies interested in proposals for new lighthouse works


chargeable to the General Lighthouse Fund would submit names of persons who would adequately represent their views on such matters. The committee is composed of eight shipowners, of whom four represent England, two Scotland, two Ireland, all nominated by the Chamber of Shipping together with two merchants selected by the Council of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, and two underwriters selected by the committee of Lloyd's. The committee has no statutory basis.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sweeping changes in the constitution of this committee were recommended by a Royal Commission on Lighthouse Services as long ago as 1908?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of that fact, but this arrangement has worked well during the last few years, and I do not propose to alter it.

Major NEVEN-SPENCE: Will he not at least consider the advisability of giving some representation to fishermen, bargees and the coastal vessels?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir, I do not propose to alter the composition of the committee, which works very well. The lighting of our coasts is admirably done, and I need not revise it.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAUMONT-BRITISH PICTURE CORPORATION.

Mr. DAY: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to say whether his Department has investigated the possible changes in control of the Gaumont-British Picture Corporation, which controls over 300 picture theatres in the United Kingdom and which is passing to American interests; and whether, in the national interest, he proposes to take any steps in the matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 27th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears).

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider asking the committee investigating the amendment of the Cinematograph Films Act to consider this very important position?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have no doubt that they will take notice of what has been said in this House by the hon. Gentleman and myself.

Mr. DAY: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some specific instructions?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITING.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that a great impetus will be given to recruiting if it were made clear that the services of recruits are required solely for support of the collective system of the League of Nations and would not be used for any other purpose, he will consider issuing an appeal on these lines?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am not satisfied that an appeal on the lines suggested by the hon. Member would have the effect which he foresees.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Would not a greater impetus be given to recruiting if we limited and clarified our international obligations?

Mr. MANDER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that he is not likely to get his recruits on any other basis?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to secure that nobody is allowed to fight without a signed permit from the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander)?

TERRITORIAL ARMY (TRAINING LEAVE).

Mr. LEWIS JONES: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Glamorgan County Council through its roads and bridges committee has refused leave of absence to two of its officials who are officers in the Territorial Force to attend camp this year; and whether he will take the matter up with the council?

Sir WALDRON SMITHERS: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a recent decision of the Glamorgan County Council roads and bridges committee, whereby two members of the clerical staff, after making all arrangements, have been prevented from going to a Territorial camp;


and will he communicate with this authority and urge them to reconsider their decision?

Mr. COOPER: I understand that leave was refused under a rule made by the council in 1925, to the effect that temporary staff should not be entitled to leave until completion of 12 months' service, and this rule has been adhered to although the officers in question offered to waive any pay from the council during their camp leave, or alternatively to surrender their ordinary leave when it becomes due. Active representations were made by the local Territorial Army Association, but without success, and I can, therefore, only express my deep regret that a rule which may be appropriate in relation to ordinary holidays has been applied in this way to the annual training leave of members of the Territorial Army.

Mr. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of this unpatriotic action by the Glamorgan County Council the 53rd Division of Engineers have gone into annual training understaffed this year?

Mr. GALLACHER: Arising out of the answer and the desire of the Minister to waive the rule which stands in the way of such an act as this, will he be able to waive the rule which did the man Salisbury out of his £34?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not my right hon. Friend see that the Glamorgan County Council regard service in camp as a holiday?

COURT-MARTIAL (GUARDSMAN R. W. BRANCH).

Mr. THORNE: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information in connection with the case of Guardsman R. W. Branch, of the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who was court-martialled for insubordination; and whether he can state the reason why the charge was made and what sentence was passed?

Mr. COOPER: Guardsman Branch was found guilty by a district court-martial of disobeying a lawful command, and was sentenced by the court for this, and for an earlier offence, to which he pleaded guilty, of conduct to the prejudice of

good order and military discipline, to 28 days' detention. Fourteen days of the sentence were subsequently remitted.

Mr. THORNE: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that Guardsman Branch was found not guilty of offering violence to his superior officer; that Private Curry knocked the Guardsman's head through a window; that the Guardsman was damaged very badly, and produced a blood-stained towel in court to prove that Private Curry had done this to him; and is it the duty of a superior officer to strike a private?

Mr. COOPER: Private Curry is not a superior officer to anybody, but I have looked closely into the facts. There was a slight divergence of testimony, and the court-martial had to decide upon the facts that were presented to them, and I am satisfied that there was no miscarriage of, justice.

Mr. PILKINGTON: Is it not the fact that the publicity caused by a question such as this is not particularly good for the maintenance of discipline?

GENERAL OFFICERS.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: asked the Secretary of State for War how many of the general officers commanders-in-chief of commands in the United Kingdom, and how many of the general officers commanding Territorial divisions, are over 60 years of age?

Mr. COOPER: The numbers are four and two, respectively.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: asked the Secretary of State for War whether arrangements are being made to give all general officers and commanders-in-chief of commands in the United Kingdom an opportunity this year, and in subsequent years, of exercising high command in manoeuvres or, failing that, in military exercises without troops?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

Captain CUNNINGHAM - REID: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the assurance given by him in May, 1935, that all general officers on the active list of the Army are medically examined annually as to their fitness in all respects for active service, whether since then any have died or been found either permanently or temporarily unfit in


any respect for active service; and whether any of those so found unfit are still on full pay or holding any command or appointment?

Mr. COOPER: One general officer on the active list has died since May, 1935. Two general officers are at present unfit for general duty and, in consequence, are on the half-pay list as officers who are not holding any command or appointment.

BANK OF ENGLAND (MILITARY GUARD).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of hours each night the military guard are on duty at the Bank of England; what, if any, refreshments are supplied to the officer and men of this guard during this period; and will he give particulars?

Mr. COOPER: The military picquet is on duty at the Bank of England between the hours of 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. in the summer and 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. in the winter. The bank provides the officer with dinner, and the other ranks with gratuities so that they may purchase refreshments from the guard-room canteen as they desire. In addition, supper is provided by the battalion supplying the picquet.

Mr. DAY: Is the gratuity sufficient to provide food for the men on duty?

Mr. PETHERICK: Is there any evidence to show that people suffer more from night starvation than they do from day?

1ST LONDON (ANTI-AIRCRAFT) DIVISION.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Secretary of State for War what units of the Territorial Army are given the duty of the defence of London against air attack; what is their total authorised strength; and what is their present strength?

Mr. COOPER: As the list of units is rather a long one, I will, with the permission of my hon. Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The total establishment of the 1st (London) Anti-Air-craft Division is 16,892 all ranks and the strength on 1st July was 6,450.

Mr. DUNCAN: Are any of the new Territorial companies which are to be open to men of over 45 among the list which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to circulate?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

Following is the list of units comprising the 1st London (Anti-Aircraft) Division:

Royal Artillery:

Anti-Aircraft Brigades:

51st (London).
52nd (London).
53rd (City of London).
54th (City of London).
55th (Kent).
58th (Kent).
4th City of London Regiment.
11th London Regiment.
7th The Essex Regiment.

Royal Engineers:

Anti-Aircraft Battalions:

26th (London).
27th (London).
28th (Essex).
29th (Kent &amp; Middlesex).
30th (Surrey).
6th City of London Regiment.
7th City of London Regiment.
19th London Regiment.
20th London Regiment.
21st London Regiment.
36th (Middlesex).

Royal Corps of Signals:

1st Anti-Aircraft Divisional Signals.

Royal Army Service Corps:

Anti-Aircraft Divisional R.A.S.C.

Headquarters and Four Group Companies.

Royal Army Medical Corps:

Medical Officers attached.

Divisional Headquarters.

Group Headquarters.

SUPPLEMENTARY RESERVE (INFANTRY SECTION).

Captain GUNSTON: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has in contemplation any immediate steps to improve the situation created by the shortage of recruits for the Regular Army?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir. I propose to create a new infantry section of the Supplementary Reserve, with an initial establishment of 17,000. Enlistment will be for general service in the infantry for six years with an option of re-engagement for a further period of four years, and will be open to unmarried men between the


ages of 17 and 25 years in all parts of the United Kingdom. Men enlisted into this new section of the Supplementary Reserve will be required to do 26 weeks training in the first year of their service, and 14 days training annually thereafter. They will receive a free issue of clothing on enlistment, and during the training periods full pay as for Regular Infantry of the Line, with an annual bounty of £6 conditional on their carrying out the required annual training.

Captain GUNSTON: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that very welcome announcement, may I ask whether the Supplementary Reserve will do their training with Regular units?

Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir.

Mr. MATHERS: Will the members of the new unit be required to certify that they have been frightened out of their wits?

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to enlist in this unit young men upon whom the Government are imposing the means test in South Wales?

Mr. JAGGER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon university students to enlist as privates?

Mr. GALLACHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman call this the U.A.B. regulations battalion?

Mr. EMMOTT: Has there been any such improvement in recruiting for the Regular Army as would cause the right hon. Gentleman to revise the figures which he gave to the House on the introduction of his Estimates?

Mr. COOPER: Recruiting for the Regular Army does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

WAR OFFICE (MACHINE OPERATORS).

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Civil Service Clerical Association has been waiting for nearly two months for the commencement of negotiations on the position of machine operators, etc., employed in his Department; what is the reason for this delay; and when he anticipates that negotiations will be opened?

Mr. COOPER: This question has been under active consideration, but it is a matter which requires detailed examination. It is hoped that negotiations will be opened without undue delay.

Mr. BANFIELD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in matters of this kind any delay is a very serious source of irritation, and will he do his best to avoid it?

STAFF MATTERS.

Mr. BANFIELD: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that discontent exists in the Civil Service at the slowness with which matters affecting the staff are dealt with by the Treasury and Government Departments generally; and whether he will cause instructions to be given to the establishments division of the Treasury and the establishment officers of Departments that such matters shall be treated with reasonable promptness and despatch?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I do not agree that there is delay on the part either of the Treasury or of Government Departments generally in dealing with staff matters. I see no need, therefore, for the issue of instructions as suggested in the last part of the question.

Mr. BANFIELD: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that there is discontent that the grievances are not remedied, and will he do his best to see that arbitration proceedings are started as quickly as possible?

Mr. MORRISON: As I said in my original answer, I have not been able to discover any cases of undue delay on the part of the Treasury or any Government Departments. If the hon. Member has a specific case in mind, I hope he will bring it to my notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EJECTION ORDERS.

Mr. CASSELLS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of ejection orders passed against tenants during the years 1933, 1934, and 1935 in the sheriff courts at Dumbarton, Glasgow, Hamilton, Airdrie, Edinburgh, and Falkirk; and in how many of these cases the subjects were decontrolled?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): As the answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. CASSELLS: In regard to the latter part of the question, may I take it from

The following statement shows the total number of ejection orders passed against tenants during the years 1933, 1934 and 1935 at the Sheriff Courts shown, and the number of such orders which were in respect of decontrolled subjects.


Court.
1933.
1934.
1935.


Total number of ejection orders.
Number of ejection orders in respect of decontrolled subjects.
Total number of ejection orders.
Number of ejection orders in respect of decontrolled subjects.
Total number of ejection orders.
Number of ejection orders in respect of decontrolled subjects.


Dumbarton
…
433
197
360
224
258
148


Glasgow
…
5,532
†
4,675
†
4,701
†


Hamilton
…
263
†
211
†
192
†


Airdrie
…
219
†
184
†
132
†


Edinburgh
…
290
105*
322
173*
304
165*


Falkirk
…
94
†
46
†
48
†


* Approximate.
† Information is not available.

MILK (SCHOOLCHILDREN).

Mr. CASSELLS: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the approximate number of children entitled to benefit under the milk-in-schools scheme, as adopted for certain areas in Glasgow and, if possible, the effect which the scheme has had upon the general health of those taking full advantage thereof?

Sir G. COLLINS: Any child between the ages of two and 15 years in Glasgow may call at one of the children's milk centres established by the Scottish Milk Marketing Board in the Anderston, Bridgeton, Gorbals and Govan districts, to buy milk at the reduced price for consumption on the premises. The scheme only started on 29th June, and the Board are not in a position to assess the effects on the health of the children.

Mr. CASSELLS: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give me any specific information with regard to the number of children who are entitled to benefit under this scheme?

Sir G. COLLINS: All the children in Glasgow under the ages specified will benefit under this scheme. I have not the exact number of children in the particular area referred to. I made inquiries but they were not available.

the reply that specific information was supplied to the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the plots which in point of fact were decontrolled?

Sir G. COLLINS: Yes, Sir.

Following is the reply:

GRASS SICKNESS.

Sir MALCOLM BARCLAY-HARVEY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any in formation about the incidence of grass sickness in horses in Germany; and what steps are taken there to deal with the problem?

Sir G. COLLINS: I have no information at my disposal about the incidence of the disease in Germany or the steps, if any, taken to deal with it. I am endeavouring, however, to ascertain the position in that country.

Captain McEWEN: Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to present his remarks to the German Government in the form of a questionnaire?

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Duchess of ATHOLL: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many producer-retailers, producer-wholesalers, and certified producers, respectively, are registered under the Scottish milk scheme; how many of these have been paying a levy based on gallonage since payments per cow were instituted; what is the total amount of levy paid on a gal lonage basis by these producers since the


inception of the scheme; and how much of this consists of payments declared to be illegal in the recent House of Lords' decision in the Ferrier case?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am in communication with the Scottish Milk Marketing Board with a view to obtaining for the Noble Lady the information she desires so far as it can be made available.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the board the need of completing this investigation as soon as they can, as there are many milk producers who are affected by the recent House of Lords decision?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will certainly do that, but the Noble Lady is no doubt well aware that her request involves a considerable amount of information. Directly it is ready it will be communicated to her.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: If the information is not available until the House is in recess, will the right hon. Gentleman make the information public?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will certainly do so.

Mr. CASSELLS: If the investigation elicits the fact that illegal deductions have been made, will the right hon. Gentleman bring pressure to bear upon the board to see that refund is immediately made?

Sir G. COLLINS: That is another question which does not directly arise out of this question.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In regard to those people who were sold up, their cows scattered and they themselves reduced to public assistance, will the right hon. Gentleman see that they are restored to their status quo, or will he leave it to a jury of their fellow-countrymen?

Mr. FOOT: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Scottish Milk Marketing Board has come to any decision on the situation arising out of the judgment in Ferrier v. Scottish Milk Marketing Board; and whether he has any statement to make on this subject?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am informed that the board are closely examining the whole position but have not yet reached a decision. They are meeting again to-day to consider the matter further in the light

of the advice obtained from their legal advisers.

Mr. FOOT: In view of the importance of this matter to a great number of retailers in the East of Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to make a rather fuller statement before the House rises for the Recess?

Sir G. COLLINS: It will depend on the discussions which are taking place today in the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. Until they are in a position to inform me what steps they propose to take, I cannot make any further statement.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman refer to the Milk Board that they are taking the earnings of one small section and handing them to another small section? Is not that a breach of the Eighth Commandment—"Thou shalt not steal."?

Mr. CASSELLS: Does the right hon. Gentleman admit that charges have been made by the Board which are illegal?

Sir G. COLLINS: The Board have decided that there are some charges which are illegal, and they are now considering what steps they shall take to put the matter right.

PUBLIC RECORDS.

Mr. GUY: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any decision has been made as to the introduction of legislation concerning Scottish public records and, in particular, concerning the return of certain public records from London to Edinburgh?

Sir G. COLLINS: No decision has been taken regarding the introduction of legislation on this subject. The matter is however being actively discussed with the various authorities and departments concerned.

Mr. MATHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is strong feeling in Scotland that there is grave injustice in this regard?

Sir G. COLLINS: I do not incline to that view.

SEINE-NET FISHING.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what was the number of boats


operating the seine-net from the South side of the Firth of Forth during each of the years 1920, 1925, 1930, and 1936; and what is the number to-day?

Sir G. COLLINS: The numbers of boats operating the seine net from the South side of the Firth of Forth during 1920, 1925, 1930 and 1935 were 19, 15, 35 and 33 respectively. The number operating at present is 22, but this number will probably be increased to 35 during the year as at present some boats are either lying idle or absent at herring fishing.

Mr. STEWART: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, what were the grounds given by the Fishery Board for Scotland for recommending an extension of the area for seine-net fishing in the Firth of Forth; and is he aware that this method of fishing is in fact destructive of nursery grounds, with consequent loss of mature fish round the Scottish coast?

Sir G. COLLINS: I regret I cannot at present give the reason which led the Fishery Board for Scotland to make the by-law in question. These will however come up and be fully considered by me at the end of the period of advertisement, along with any objections lodged including objections relating to the possible effect of the by-law on the stock of fish on the Scottish coast.

Mr. STEWART: How is it possible for those who object to state their case effectively if they do not know the ground on which the decision was made? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in special cases making public the grounds for the recommendation?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will consider that.

Captain McEWEN: Is it not a matter of common knowledge that there are no nursery grounds within the proposed extended area?

RENTS (LESLIE).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in the process of equalising rents the burgh council of Leslie is increasing the rental of some two-roomed houses from £7 16s. to £14 per annum, of three-roomed houses from £10 8s. to £17 per annum, and of four-roomed houses from £13 to £20 per annum: and, in view of the fact that he

has complained to the council that certain houses built with State assistance have been let to persons whose income does not entitle them to a subsidised house, he will intervene to see that persons in this Category do not benefit from the equalisation of rent at the expense of poorer tenants in the hitherto lower-rented houses?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am aware that the town council in revising the rents of municipal houses as from 28th August have decided to charge uniform rents for such houses, and that this will involve increases of approximately the amounts referred to in the question in the case of certain houses. The local authority have, however, notified their tenants that they will be prepared to give rebates from rent where in the opinion of the authority the financial circumstances of any tenant justify the granting of a rebate. The fixing of rents and the control of the houses are, under the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, matters for the local authority.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister not aware that the Department in Edinburgh complained that the council had refused to give particulars concerning the occupants of a particular estate, that the Department were of opinion that these occupants had no right to be in the houses, and that the occupants, who are not workers, are those who are going to benefit by this equalisation?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am not aware that the Department in Edinburgh had given specific instructions about particular people in particular areas, but if the hon. Member has any information I shall be happy to consider it.

Captain GUNSTON: Are we to understand that the Communist party are in favour of a means test?

Mr. GALLACHER: Arising out of the answer—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have a lot more questions on the Order Paper.

HOUSING (TERREGLES).

Mr. McKIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any further information with regard to the delay of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland in providing new houses on the estate of the Department at Terregles, Kirkcudbrightshire?

Sir G. COLLINS: The agreements were signed by the holders concerned and plans of the new houses were lodged with the local authority at the end of last week. On the approval of the plans by the local authority offers already received for the erection of the houses can be accepted. No avoidable delay has occurred.

Mr. McKIE: In view of the answer, and the special point which the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to local authorities in the South West of Scotland having done so well in housing schemes, will he impress on the Scottish Office that they may be setting a very bad example?

Sir G. COLLINS: I shall have to have the views of the local authorities on that matter before I say anything like that.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue instructions to the public assistance committees in Scotland that, when fixing up a scale for any claimant a member of whose family is in receipt of Unemployment Assistance Board's allowance, they will disregard the amount paid by the Unemployment Assistance Board in the same manner as disability and wound pensions are disregarded.

Sir G. COLLINS: No, Sir. The responsibility for deciding the amount of relief necessary in any individual case rests primarily with the Poor Law authority concerned and I have no power to issue instructions to the authorities on the point raised by the hon. Member.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform his colleague the Minister of Health that his strictures on the Glasgow Public Assistance Committee, in view of the answer that has been given, are entirely unwarranted and unjust?

SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that in summary cases it is the practice of procurators-fiscal to refuse to give the defence the names and addresses of witnesses for the Crown; whether he appreciates the hardship thereby imposed on the accused; and whether he will give instructions that procurators-fiscal should furnish such information when required by the defence?

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): In cases tried on indictment provision is made by Statute for the mutual exchange of particulars regarding witnesses proposed to be examined for the prosecution and the defence. No such provision is made as regards summary proceedings. It is, however, the practice for the names of witnesses for the Crown to be furnished to the defence in cases arising out of motor accidents and in any other case in which Crown Counsel consider that it is reasonable that such information should be supplied. The whole question has been frequently considered by the Law Officers for Scotland and I see no reason to depart from the present practice.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the Lord Advocate aware that grave hardship is inflicted, and that this refusal, except in the cases he has mentioned, is universal?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not aware that any grave hardship is inflicted by this rule, and I would remind the hon. Member that if an attempt is made to import into summary proceedings the whole machinery of indictment they would cease to be summary. I can assure the hon. Member that by the administrative action I have indicated in my answer every endeavour is being made to ensure that no cause for complaint arises.

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (SHORTHAND NOTES).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will consider the provision of a shorthand note of all evidence in all criminal proceedings, as is at present the case in the High Court?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Shorthand notes of the evidence are taken in all cases tried on indictment whether in the High Court or the Sheriff Court. In 1934, the latest year for which complete figures are available, nearly 103,000 persons were charged before 292 Summary Criminal Courts in Scotland. In a large proportion of these cases the charges were of a trivial character. The cost of providing a shorthand note of all evidence in summary criminal prosecutions would be prohibitive, and in many instances such provision would be impracticable. Further, in view of the very


limited rights of appeal available in summary proceedings, verbatim notes of evidence would serve no purpose. I therefore regret that I am unable to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Mr. CASSELLS: In view of the fact that imprisonment may follow conviction in a summary court, will the Lord Advocate reconsider the matter?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am afraid that the figures I have indicated show the enormous magnitude of the task and the enormous cost which would be incurred if the suggestion were adopted. The hon. Member knows very well that the penalty of imprisonment for a small offence imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction is imprisonment for a comparatively short time.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING (PROSECUTIONS).

Sir DOUGLAS THOMSON: asked the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the serious consequences to the master of a trawler convicted of illegal trawling, he will give instructions for verbatim notes of evidence to be taken in sheriff courts trying such cases?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Offences under the Illegal Trawling (Scotland) Act, 1934, are tried summarily, and, in view of the limited right of appeal available in such cases, no purpose would be served by the provision of verbatim notes of evidence. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to-day to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence).

Sir D. THOMSON: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will consider taking the necessary steps to provide nautical assessors in sheriff courts when evidence of illegal trawling is being considered?

The LORD ADVOCATE: There is no statutory warrant for the employment of nautical or other expert assessors in criminal cases. As the issues raised in illegal trawling prosecutions are issues of fact which are rarely, if ever, complicated by questions of practical seamanship on which the opinion of a nautical assessor would be of value, I regret that I am unable to accept my hon. Friend's suggestion.

GILBERT BAIN HOSPITAL, LERWICK.

Mr. KENNEDY: asked the Lord Advocate whether he has considered the complaint of Mr. T. S. Taylor, Milton Cottage, Burntisland, regarding the treatment he received and the accounts rendered for that treatment in the Gilbert Bain Hospital, Lerwick, from 22nd June to 29th July, 1933; whether he can state the amount of money charged and recovered by the hospital authority; whether it is proposed to take any action regarding the charge of perjury and falsification of evidence advanced by Mr. Taylor against the surgeon and matron of the Gilbert Bain Hospital; and whether, in view of the fact that this charge has recently been publicly repeated and ignored, independent inquiry can now be made in order to ascertain the facts relating to Mr. Taylor's treatment in hospital?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The answer to the first part of the right hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. A civil action at the instance of the hospital authorities against Mr. Taylor was decided in their favour by the Sheriff Substitute at Cupar-Fife, and this decision was adhered to on appeal to the Sheriff Principal. I am unable to say how much has been recovered under this decree. As I informed the right hon. Member in my letter of 7th December last, the complaint of alleged perjury has been investigated fully both by my predecessor and myself and no justification whatever for proceedings has been discovered. I see no need for any further inquiry on this point, and my right hon. Friend has no power to review the decision of the civil courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

POLICY.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of consulting the leaders of parties in this House to endeavour to arrive at an agreed defence policy that can be recommended to the nation with the backing of all parties?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): In the event of my receiving such a request from the official leaders of the parties in this House, I should certainly give it my sympathetic consideration, but


I have at present no reason to suppose that any request of the kind is likely to be made.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the great urgency and importance of our presenting a united front on this question, if we can, would it not be more desirable for the Prime Minister to take the initiative and invite the leaders of other parties to confer with him even before the Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I have said.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Would it not be very difficult considering that the Opposition parties are against the ordinary defences of the country?

CONSCRIPTION.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Prime Minister whether he will state the plans of the Government with regard to the conscription of wealth and man-power in the event of the outbreak of war; and whether these two subjects would be dealt with simultaneously?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member in reply to a supplementary question arising out of the question which he addressed to me on 24th March last.

Mr. MANDER: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether these two matters will be dealt with together?

The PRIME MINISTER: I really cannot meet every hypothetical circumstance in every hypothetical case, but I am quite certain that if such a tragedy occurs, whatever Government is in power, steps will be taken against any anti-national action.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the increased cost of paying 15s. per week to all old age pensioners; and what would be the cost of paying a pension of 15s. a week to all people at 60 years of age?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The extra cost of increasing old age pensions to 15s. a week (including blind persons' pensions

and contributory old age pensions but not including widows' pensions) would be about £32,000,000 a year at the present time. The extra cost of a universal pension of 15s. a week payable at age 60 would be about £155,000,000 a year at the present time.

Mr. SHORT: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider amending the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, to provide for an increase in the maximum allowance of earned and unearned income of applicants which is taken into account when assessing the amount of pension due?

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give consideration to the need of legislation to amend the Old Age Pensions Act, 1919, to provide for an appreciable increase in the maximum allowance of income in the assessment of the amount of pension to be paid and to other suggestions dealing with pensions made by many local authorities?

Mr. MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given on 14th May to the hon. Members for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) and Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie).

FRENCH TREASURY BILLS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount of French treasury bills still held by His Majesty's Government; and can he give particulars of how these bills fall due and the amount of instalments payable on the same?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The answer to the first part of the question is none, and the second part does not therefore arise.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. McKIE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to take any action to relieve Income Tax payers in this country who are held liable by the Inland Revenue authorities on all income arising from sources abroad, whether remitted or not, the blocking of currency from foreign States pressing heavily on many people in this country who are obliged to meet their Income Tax claims from slender reserves of capital?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: My right hon. Friend does not consider that any action


such as my hon. Friend suggests is called for. In the type of case which he has in mind, reasonable arrangements for payment are made if the taxpayer is genuinely unable to pay the tax at the proper time.

Mr. McKIE: In view of the fact that many cases have been brought to my notice of people who have been quite unable to meet their liabilities, will the Financial Secretary convey to his right hon. Friend the necessity of giving careful consideration to this matter?

Mr. MORRISON: If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind in which proper treatment has not been meted out and will bring it to my notice, I shall be glad to inquire into it.

STAMP DUTY (FEUING LANDS).

Mr. CASSELLS: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Stamp Duty on feu writs was charged by the Inland Revenue in excess of that legally due, having regard to the decision in the test cases of Paul, Span and Blair versus the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; that these charges were made on misinterpretation of the effect of the case of McInnes by the Inland Revenue; and whether he is prepared to consider the refunding of the overcharges?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) on 21st July.

Mr. CASSELLS: While I appreciate the terms of the answer to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, is it not a fact that the payments which have been made were charged by the Inland Revenue under a misapprehension with regard to the extent and effect of the judgment?

Mr. MORRISON: There is a definite rule of law that money paid over under a mistake of law is always irrecoverable. It is a point which cuts both ways. If the Revenue take a view of the law which is unduly favourable to the taxpayer, they would never attempt to get the money back after a decision the other way.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: That is no satisfaction to the taxpayer. An injustice has been done to these individuals, and why not adjust it?

Mr. CASSELLS: May I point out to the Financial Secretary that a definite question of principle arises? Do I take it from his answer that if payment is made under a mistake, the Government are to insist on their legal rights?

Mr. MORRISON: My answer means this, that there is a definite rule in the law of this country that money paid over under a mistake of law is irrecoverable, but money paid over under a mistake of fact is recoverable. The equity of this whole matter demands that the same rules should apply between the Crown and the subject as apply between subjects.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is it not a mistake if too large a sum is demanded?

Oral Answers to Questions — THE "QUEEN MARY" (SISTER SHIP CONTRACT).

Mr. MAITLAND: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any decision has yet been taken as to the placing of a contract for the building of a sister ship to the R.M.S. "Queen Mary"?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has received specific proposals from the Cunard White Star Company and has now agreed that advances shall be made under the provisions of the North Atlantic Shipping Act for the building of a sister ship. The company have supplied him with evidence showing clearly that technical and commercial considerations oblige them to place the contract with John Brown and Company, Limited, the builders of the "Queen Mary"; and he has therefore agreed to that course.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINERS' WELFARE COMMITTEE (STAFF, SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Secretary for Mines with regard to the proposal which is under consideration by the Miners' Welfare Fund Central Committee to establish a superannuation fund for their staff, whether, in view of the doubt as to whether a contribution to this fund out of the welfare fund would be legal, having regard to the terms of Section 4 of the Mining Industry Act, 1934, which provides that the fund may be applied for purposes connected with the social well-being, recreation, and conditions


of living of workers in or about the coal mines, he will consider recommending a contribution from national funds for this purpose?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I have been asked to reply. My hon. and gallant Friend is aware that the Miners' Welfare Committee have under consideration the institution of a superannuation scheme for the staff employed by them. He has no reason to doubt the legality of the proposal, and would not be prepared to recommend a contribution from national funds for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLLIERY ACCIDENTS (TETANUS).

Mr. S. O. DAVIES: asked the Secretary for Mines how many men and boys have died from tetanus resulting from colliery accidents in South Wales and in Great Britain, respectively, during the last five years, 1931–35?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I have been asked to reply. The number of such deaths is very small, but precise information is not available.

Mr. S. O. DAVIES: Are we to understand that the Secretary for Mines is absolutely incapable of getting the information desired? Most of these deaths are recorded through coroners' inquests, and we are anxious to know whether the number is increasing?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I will convey those suggestions to the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can supply for the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, and 1935, respectively, the number of ex-service men's widows who applied for a pension and the number refused; and the number of ex-service men who applied for a pension and the number refused?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. R. S. Hudson): As detailed figures are involved I will, with permission, circulate the reply in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The numbers of claims to pensions from ex-service men's widows and orphan children which were decided during each of the six years 31st March, 1931–36 were as follow:


Year ended
Number of claims.
Number found ineligible to claim or claims refused.


31st March, 1931
2,512
1,148


31st March, 1932
2,524
1,338


31st March, 1933
2,262
1,412


31st March, 1934
2,127
1,352


31st March, 1935
1,978
1,268


31st March, 1936
1,959
1,246

The numbers of claims from ex-service men on account of disability and the number of those whose claims could not be substantiated were as follow:


Year ended
Number of claims.
Number of claims not substantiated.


31st March, 1931
18,509
16,612


31st March, 1932
8,275
7,142


31st March, 1933
4,547
3,845


31st March, 1934
3,615
3,060


31st March, 1935
2,881
2,379


31st March, 1936
2,452
1,995

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSTRUCTIONAL CENTRES.

Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWART: asked the Minister of Labour the number of Durham men between the ages of 18 and 21 who have satisfactorily completed a course at an instructional centre since 1934; the number that have been placed in employment; the number that have been transferred; and the number that have had to return home because work was not available?

Sir JAMES BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend regrets that the information asked for in the hon. Member's question is not included in the available statistics.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. JENKINS: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been


called to the actions of officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board in pressing applicants for assistance, whose house rents are equal to or in excess of the scales rates, to let part of their houses as apartments; and will he take immediate steps to bring about a discontinuance of this practice?

Sir J. BLINDELL: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Unemployment Assistance Board that this point only arises in cases where the accommodation is more than is reasonably required for the applicant and his household, and the rent is correspondingly high. My right hon. Friend does not think it would be right for the board to pay an extra allowance to cover a high rent which could reasonably be reduced by sub-letting; the hon. Member will appreciate, therefore, that if an opportunity for sub-letting is neglected an unnecessary proportion of the allowance would be spent on rent and there would be less available for food and other requirements. My right hon. Friend has no doubt that the local advisory committees will be able to help on this type of case.

Mr. JENKINS: Does the hon. Gentleman not think this is grossly unfair to these people, and will he not arrange for publication of the instructions issued to district officers with regard to this matter.

Sir J. BLINDELL: I will pass that suggestion to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. T. SMITH: Are we to take it that it is the intention of the board to insist on sub-letting where the recipient of the allowance is paying a fairly high rent?

Sir J. BLINDELL: I think the hon. Member had better take what I have already said in answer to the question.

Mr. SHINWELL: May I put a point to you, Sir? There are several very important questions on the Paper relating to the Minister of Labour. Why is it that the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary is not present? With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think he is not in a position to answer these questions.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point for me.

Mr. E. SMITH: Will my hon. Friend bring to the notice of his right hon. Friend the fact that a large number of local authorities deprecate sub-letting, particularly so far as council houses are concerned?

Mr. SHINWELL: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether it is possible to obtain the services of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to answer these important questions?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask whether the Leader of the House can give any explanation as to why, on two days running, when we have two Ministers in a Ministry, neither is available to answer questions on the Paper?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I have not had any notice of that, and I am sorry it should be so. I am sure there is a good explanation, but I will make inquiries, and I can safely say that we will see that one or other of them is here to-morrow.

SCHOOL CAMP, BARNSLEY.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Labour on what grounds he cannot recognise expenditure on the part of the Barnsley Local Education Authority in respect of unemployed juveniles attending the authority's school camp during two weeks in 1935?

Sir J. BLINDELL: The expenditure in question is properly chargeable to the authority's ordinary education account and is eligible for grant from the Board of Education. As stated on 25th June by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, the Board have already notified the authority of their recognition of the expenditure for the purposes of their grant.

Mr. POTTS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the amount already sanctioned is not the amount that has actually been spent; and will he ask the Minister of Labour to give further consideration to the question of whether this expenditure on unemployed juveniles is not money well spent?

Sir J. BLINDELL: The answer definitely states that the expenditure in


question is chargeable to the authority's ordinary education account and is eligible for grant from the Department.

Mr. POTTS: But the grant is too small.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. LANSBURY:

66. To ask the Minister of Labour whether relatives of persons receiving public assistance from the Public Assistance Board, living as lodgers or tenants of such persons, will be considered as part of the household and thus become liable to contribute to the maintenance of their relatives in receipt of assistance?

67. To ask the Minister of Labour whether the investigating officers employed by the Public Assistance Board will be instructed to inquire from the employers of those relatives of applicants for assistance whose earnings and other income must be taken into account when assessing need, what is the weekly income, wages, or other earnings of such relatives?

Mr. LANSBURY: I propose to postpone these questions until one of the Ministers responsible for this Department is present.

Mr. JENKINS: Are we to understand that other questions on the Order Paper addressed to this Department will be postponed until the Minister is present?

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE BRIGADE SERVICES.

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Home Secretary what steps the Government propose to take in relation to the recommendations contained in the report of the Departmental Committee on Fire Brigade Services?

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he has any statement to make as to the extent of the Exchequer contribution which will be forthcoming to enable effective provisions to be made by the local authorities against fire risks associated with air raids;
(2) whether he has any statement to make upon the recommendation of the

Departmental Committee on Fire Brigade Services of a fire prevention research board to initiate and supervise scientific research into technical questions of fire protection and fire extinction?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has only recently received the report of the Departmental Committee on Fire Brigade Services, which contains many important and far-reaching recommendations. He is giving these his immediate consideration, but regrets that he is not in a position to make any statement to-day.

Mr. MORRISON: Will the hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend the urgency of this matter from the point of view of local authorities who are anxious to make up their minds in regard to the future in this connection; and will he do his best to expedite a decision?

Mr. LLOYD: I appreciate the local authorities' point of view.

Mr. MAITLAND: Before any steps are taken, will the hon. Gentleman consider giving the House an opportunity of discussing the matter?

Oral Answers to Questions — COURTS OF SUMMARY JURISDICTION.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to recent cases in which persons have been committed to gaol without bail by virtue of warrants issued without proper inquiries at the instance of private individuals; and whether, in view of the growing dissatisfaction with this and other aspects of the performance of these duties by magistrates in courts of summary jurisdiction, he will consider setting up a Departmental Committee to inquire into and make recommendations for the improvement of these courts?

Mr. LLOYD: If my hon. and gallant Friend knows of any cases in which there are grounds for thinking that a warrant has been issued improperly, I shall be glad if he will send me particulars. My right hon. Friend is considering the institution of inquiries into certain definite aspects of the work of courts of summary


jurisdiction, and he thinks that more useful results are likely to be obtained by this means than by any wider inquiry extending over the whole field.

Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Gentleman give some indication of the particular aspects into which inquiry is to be made?

Mr. LLOYD: Yes; for example, the system of the appointment and payment of justices' clerks.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXECUTIONS (BURIAL SERVICES).

Mr. FOOT: asked the Home Secretary whether any prisoners who have been condemned to death during the last three years have requested that they should be buried according to the rites of their religion; and whether the request was granted?

Mr. LLOYD: Irrespective of any request to that effect made by the prisoner, it is the practice for the chaplain or the appropriate minister of religion to hold a service at the burial.

Mr. FOOT: Is the service in accordance with the rites of the condemned man's religion?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

RAILWAY ELECTRIFICATION.

Sir ARNOLD GRIDLEY: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can say when further railway electrification schemes in the provinces will be decided upon, and in and around Manchester in particular; and will he give brief particulars and the estimated costs?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): The responsibility for initiating such schemes rests with the railway companies, and my right hon. Friend is unable to anticipate their intentions.

FERRY SERVICE (KYLESKU, SUTHERLAND).

Mr. McKIE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the ferry service at Kylesku, Sutherland; and whether it is being more efficiently and regularly worked than in previous years?

Captain HUDSON: I understand that the ferry is now operated by a private

individual and no longer by the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. My right hon. Friend has received no recent representations that the service is inefficient or irregular during the summer period when the ferry is running.

Mr. McKIE: In view of the inconvenience caused in previous years will the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his Department consider the question of giving a grant towards a bridge, similar to the grant given to the adjacent county council of Rosshire a year or two ago, for Dornie Ferry?

Captain HUDSON: A question was asked by my hon. Friend last year, but the project for a bridge was found to be impracticable. The responsible authority for the initiation of such a scheme is the Sutherland County Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — HIRE PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.

Mr. THURTLE: asked Mr. Attorney-General whether his attention has been called to the inequitable terms from the standpoint of the hirer, of the hire-purchase agreements now commonly in use; and whether, in view of the widespread adoption of the hire-purchase system by people not familiar with legal agreements and lacking resources to defend themselves against sharp practices, he will consider the possibility of taking steps to restrain, by law, the oppressive character of agreements under this system?

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Terence O'Connor): My hon. and learned Friend's attention has been called to the question of hire-purchase agreements. Alterations to the county court rules are being made with a view to preventing the hardships which may arise from a defendant being sued elsewhere than in his own district. With regard to the terms inserted in these agreements, I have no evidence that those in general use are such as would justify interference by the legislature.

Mr. MACLEAN: In any legislation that is being considered in relation to this question of hire purchase, will the hon. and learned Gentleman see to it that no room is left for evasion by the use of the term "deferred payments system" instead of "hire purchase system" as is being done in Scotland?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am satisfied, as I said, that at present there is no evidence which would justify interference. As regards the matter of procedure, that is in hand now.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPLOSION, KNOTTINGLEY.

Mr. A. HILLS (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any information regarding the explosion which occurred yesterday at the Knottingley Chemical Works of the Yorkshire Tar Distilleries Company, as a result of which one man has died and four are injured; and whether it is proposed to hold any inquiry into the matter.

Sir J. SIMON: I much regret to state that four men lost their lives in this accident, and I am sure the whole House would wish to express to their relatives its very deep sympathy. Factory inspectors are inquiring into the matter and the hon. Member may be assured that all the circumstances will be fully investigated.

Mr. HILLS: If I put down a question on Thursday, will it be possible to get any further information then?

Sir J. SIMON: I will make further inquiries and communicate with the hon. Gentleman. If there is anything further which he would like to have publicly stated, I shall be here to state it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister when it is proposed that the House should resume after the Summer Adjournment?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government propose that the House should reassemble on Thursday, 29th October, when it is expected that Parliament will be prorogued. His Majesty will open the new Session on Tuesday, 3rd November.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will questions be taken on 29th October?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not know.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. COCKS: I rise to ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a personal statement. During the all-night sitting last week I interjected an observation reflecting in unparliamentary terms upon the Secretary of State for the Home

Department. I wish to take this opportunity to withdraw that observation, to express my deep regret for having made it, and to tender my sincere apology to you, Sir, to the Home Secretary and to the House.

Sir J. SIMON: May I thank the hon. Gentleman and say that I never regarded his remark as having been seriously made, and I very willingly accept his withdrawal and apology.

PUBLIC PETITIONS.

Special Report from the Committee brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (RIPON) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill.

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order (No. 2) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Heathfield and District Water) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Helston and Porthleven Water) Bill, without Amendment.

Air Navigation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (St. Helens) Bill [Lords].

Dover Corporation Bill [Lords].

Manchester Corporation Bill [Lords].

Mortlake Crematorium Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they do not insist on their Amendment to the Education Bill to which the Commons have disagreed.

AIR NAVIGATION BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 172.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[20TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

REPORT [27th July.]

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a sum, not exceeding £466,702, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for land improvement, agricultural education, research and marketing, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, and certain grants in aid."

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £74,565, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and a Grant in Aid of Piers or Quays."

CLASS I.

3. "That a sum, not exceeding £63,551, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Scotland in London and Edinburgh; Expenses under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899; a Subsidy for Transport Services to the Western Highlands and Islands; a Grant in lieu of Land Tax; and Contributions towards the Expenses of Probation, and of Remand Homes."

CLASS II.

4. "That a sum, not exceeding £117,736, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs."

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS I.

5. "That a sum, not exceeding £1,428,664, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure in respect of the Services

included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:—




£


1.
House of Lords Offices
25,778


2.
House of Commons
236,785


3.
Expenses under the Representation of the People Acts
175,000


4.
Treasury and Subordinate Departments
203,851


5.
Privy Council Office
8,105


6.
Privy Seal Office
2,402


7.
Charity Commission
26,621


8.
Civil Service Commission
15,300


9.
Exchequer and Audit Department
87,954


10.
Friendly Societies' Deficiency
5,529


11.
Government Actuary
20,620


12.
Government Chemist
52,964


13.
Government Hospitality
5,000


14.
Import Duties Advisory Committee
39,414


15.
The Mint
75,000


16.
National Debt Office
2,327


17.
National Savings Committee
74,598


18.
Public Record Office
26,742


19.
Public Works Loan Commission
90


20.
Repayments to the Local Loans Fund
35,604


21.
Royal Commissions, etc.
23,600


22.
Miscellaneous Expenses
3,818


23.
Secret Service (including a Supplementary sum of £100,000)
250,000


24.
Treasury Chest Fund
24,322


26.
Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund
7,230


27.
Tithe Redemption Commission
10




£1,428,664"

CLASS II.

6. "That a sum, not exceeding £5,959,602, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class II of the Civil Estimates, namely:—




£


2.
Diplomatic and Consular Services
595,955


3.
League of Nations
141,500


4.
Dominions Office
34,564


5.
Dominion Services
426,151


6.
Irish Free State Services
1,925,067


7.
Oversea Settlement
13,475


8.
Colonial Office
112,459


9.
Colonial and Middle Eastern Services (including
a Supplementary sum of £10)
513,303


10.
Colonial Development Fund
550,000


11.
India Services
1,213,625


12.
Imperial War Graves Commission
433,503




£5,959,602"

CLASS III.

7. "That a sum, not exceeding £10,722,219, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Home Office (including a Supplementary sum of £857,000)
1,536,259


2.
Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum
47,461


3.
Police, England and Wales
5,906,759


4.
Prisons, England and Wales
568,042


5.
Approved Schools, etc., England and Wales
255,250


6.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
90


7.
County Courts
90


8.
Land Registry
90


9.
Public Trustee
90


10.
Law Charges
81,745


11.
Miscellaneous Legal Expenses
7,056


Scotland.


12.
Police
958,496


13.
Prisons Department
120,207


14.
Approved Schools, etc.
41,800


15.
Scottish Land Court
5,286


16.
Law Charges and Courts of Law
30,231


17.
Register House, Edinburgh
90


18.
Northern Ireland Services
2,273


19.
Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.
1,540


20.
Land Purchase Commission
1,159,364




£10,722,219"

CLASS IV.

8. "That a sum, not exceeding £36,094,327, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Board of Education
30,123,726


2.
British Museum
108,680


3.
British Museum (Natural History)
69,916


4.
Imperial War Museum
8,270


5.
London Museum
3,822


6.
National Gallery
17,631


7.
National Maritime Museum
6,114


8.
National Portrait Gallery
5,881


9.
Wallace Collection
7,501


10.
Scientific Investigation, etc.
126,525


11.
Universities and Colleges, Great Britain
1,341,000





Scotland.




£


12.
Public Education
4,265,674


13.
National Galleries
7,439


14.
National Library
2,148




£36,094,327"

CLASS V.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £100,612,219, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Ministry of Health
15,628,150


2.
Board of Control
91,973


3.
Registrar General's Office
65,668


4.
National Insurance Audit Department
111,440


5.
Friendly Societies Registry
32,563


6.
Old Age Pensions
28,221,000


7.
Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions
8,500,000


8.
Ministry of Labour
14,219,000


9.
Unemployment Allowances
27,600,000


10.
Grants in respect of Employment Schemes
2,750,000


11.
Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales)
90


12.
Unemployment Assistance Board
1,370,000


13.
Special Areas Fund
2,000,000


Scotland.




£


15.
Board of Control
10,255


16.
Registrar General's Office
11,990


17.
Commissioner for Special Areas
90




£100,612,219"

CLASS VI.

10. "That a sum, not exceeding £13,801,898, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


2.
Mercantile Marine Services
260,822


3.
Assistance to British Shipping
2,000,000


4.
Department of Overseas Trade
308,371


5.
Export Credits
90


6.
Mines Department of the Board of Trade
130,744


7.
Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands
23,270


8.
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
1,277,878


9.
Beet Sugar Subsidy, Great Britain
3,305,010








£


10.
Milk (England and Wales and Northern Ireland)
1,145,000


11.
Cattle Fund (including a Supplementary sum of £2,930,900
2,934,900


12.
Surveys of Great Britain
166,820


13.
Forestry Commission
500,000


14.
Ministry of Transport
41,152


15.
Development Fund
405,000


16.
Development Grants
670,000


17.
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research
436,661


18.
State Management Districts
90


19.
Clearing Offices
90


Scotland.


21.
Milk
162,000


23.
Herring Industry
34,000




£13,801,898"

CLASS VII.

11. "That a sum, not exceeding £4,837,545, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain
231,840


2.
Houses of Parliament Buildings
81,295


4.
Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain
95,825


5.
Osborne
7,470


6.
Office of Works and Public Buildings
361,900


7.
Public Buildings, Great Britain (including a Supplementary sum of £32,350)
896,345


8.
Public Buildings Overseas (Supplementary sum)
38,750


9.
Royal Palaces (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)
86,964


10.
Revenue Buildings (including a Supplementary sum of £20,000)
1,054,295


11.
Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens
134,255


12.
Rates on Government Property
932,852


13.
Stationery and Printing
872,859


14.
Peterhead Harbour
21,000


15.
Works and Buildings in Ireland
21,895




£4,837,545"

CLASS VIII.

12. "That a sum, not exceeding £27,960,108, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st

day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Merchant Seamen's War Pensions
187,541


2.
Ministry of Pensions
25,900,000


3.
Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
829,988


4.
Superannuation and Retired Allowances
1,042,579




£27,960,108"

CLASS IX.

13. "That a sum, not exceeding £28,224,427, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, namely:




£


1.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales
24,499,947


2.
Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland
3,724,480




£28,224,427"

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1936.

14. "That a sum, not exceeding £53,185,800, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:




£


1.
Customs and Excise
3,737,100


2.
Inland Revenue
5,104,700


3.
Post Office
44,344,000




£53,185,800"

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1936.

15. "That a sum, not exceeding £40,782,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Estimates, namely:




£


3.
Medical Establishments and Services
384,500


4.
Fleet Air Arm
3,066,000


5.
Educational Services
204,000


6.
Scientific Services
492,000


7.
Royal Naval Reserves
350,700


8.
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:




Section I.—Personnel
7,072,000



Section II.—Matériel
5,752,300



Section III.—Contract Work
14,441,000








£


9.
Naval Armaments
7,115,300


11.
Miscellaneous Effective Services
721,300


12.
Admiralty Office
1,183,000




£40,782,100"

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1936

16. "That a sum, not exceeding £25,486,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:




£


2.
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces
5,984,000


3.
Medical Services
987,000


4.
Educational Establishments
947,000


5.
Quartering and Movements
1,417,000


6.
Supplies, Road Transport and Remounts
4,410,000


7.
Clothing
1,143,000


8.
General Stores
2,525,000


9.
Warlike Stores
7,185,000


12.
War Office
888,000




£25,486,000"

AIR ESTIMATES, 1936

17. "That a sum, not exceeding £6,631,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:




£


2.
Quartering, Stores (except Technical), Supplies and Transportation
2,838,000


5.
Medical Services
368,000


6.
Technical Training and Educational Services
657,000


7.
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
557,000


9.
Meteorological and Miscellaneous Effective Services
817,000


10.
Air Ministry
950,000


11.
Half-pay, Pensions, and other Non-Effective Services
444,000




£6,631,000"

First Resolution read a Second time.

Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

3.50 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I am glad an opportunity has been afforded, on the discussion of this Vote, to say something on the working of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland

and to give a brief review of its activities, as well as to say something in general about agriculture in Scotland. On the last occasion on which we discussed Scottish Estimates an arrangement was reached that hon. Members who took part in the Debate should speak for a very few minutes only and enable in that way as many as possible to take part. That arrangement worked so satisfactorily that I understand the experiment is to be repeated on this occasion, and for that reason, and also for the reason that an interruption will take place for other business at half-past seven, I intend to make my review as brief as possible, but at the conclusion of the discussion, that is, before half-past seven, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate proposes to reply and to deal with as many as possible of the points raised in the discussion.
It has been said with much truth that agriculture is not one industry but many industries, and nowhere is that more true than in Scotland. For its size Scotland is probably unrivalled in the agricultural variations which it can present, ranging from the large farms and rich cultivation of some of the Lowland districts to the tiny, windswept crofts of the Northern and Western isles. Scottish agriculture is indeed no simple unified industry. Its problems are complex and do not yield to one kind of treatment. There is one general principle, however, which it is right to keep in mind in studying those problems. Agriculture, though a basic industry, is not an isolated one and has a close relationship with many other industries. As industry prospers and the standard of living and the consumption of food tend to go up, so the agricultural population will be assisted, and the agricultural population will be an important customer for the manufacturer and distributor. Agriculture in all its branches is very closely interlocked in the economic structure of the nation.
I have mentioned the inter-relation of agriculture and other industry, and, if I am right, one should hope that the recent improvement of industry, for which the Government do not disclaim some credit, would be followed by a stronger demand and better prices for at least some of our agricultural products. Factors affecting prices are very hard to disentangle, but the index figures have shown that in the first six months of


this year, as compared with the corresponding period in 1935, there have been increases of varying amounts in the prices of fat and store cattle, eggs, butter, cheese, and wool, and from the Scottish point of view it is interesting to note that all these are products of animal husbandry, which form over 80 per cent. of Scottish agriculture.
In this varied and complex industry it is too much to hope that all branches and all districts will progress equally and simultaneously, and, as we know, we have our difficulties in certain branches of agriculture in Scotland. I want, first of all, to refer to one of those. Much has been said, and said with great cogency, of the difficulties of those who grow oats for direct sale, particularly in the North-Eastern district of Scotland. It was a matter for sincere regret to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to us all that, in spite of careful and prolonged consideration of the subject in all its bearings, it was found that the difficulties in the way of any direct assistance to oats were insurmountable. Hon. Members, however, are probably aware that a deputation representing the oat growers of the North-East and other districts of Scotland was met by the Prime Minister a few days ago and was informed by him that a further inquiry would be made into the possibility of adjusting the present policy of assistance to cereal growing so as to secure a more even distribution of the benefits.
It is sometimes suggested—in fact, I hear it often suggested—however, that Scottish farming does not benefit at all, or that it benefits hardly at all, under the Wheat Act. It is true that for reasons of soil and climate the percentage of the total wheat subsidy attracted to Scotland is relatively small compared to what is attracted to districts South of the Border, but even so the sums paid are far from negligible and should not be lost account of in speaking of the assistance given to Scottish farmers. Payments, for example, made to wheat growers in Scotland for the cereal year 1934–35, the last I have, amounted in Scotland to £382,000. The assistance which has been given through the beet sugar subsidy is helping to tide over a difficult period in Scottish agriculture, and the orderly regulation of the marketing of potatoes, and of imports, has afforded very definite assistance to potato

growers. This improvement in the general level of potato prices must have made a substantial difference to many Scottish farmers. In the realm of horticulture, a very important and extensive side of agricultural work, the benefits of the Government's legislation are also apparent in Scotland, various horticultural products having been fostered under the Import Duties Act.
There is a very important Scottish interest in beef, and of special interest to Scottish farmers is the announcement of the Government's long-term policy on beef. A total subsidy of approximately £5,000,000, of which, as the House knows, a substantial part will have to come from the Treasury, will be made available. While the benefits are primarily for the cattle feeder, it is obvious that indirect advantages will also be derived by the breeder and the dairy farmer, as well as many others who are connected with the industry. From our point of view in Scotland, a very important part of the scheme, the details of which have not yet been fully worked out, is that special encouragement should be given to the production of cattle of the better qualities, a provision that should be of particular interest to the North-East of Scotland, which excel in the production of the finest kinds of beef. The general announcement of the line of our policy has been made, but the full announcement of our long-term policy will be made later. It is hoped that the announcement will be made in the autumn, in the new Session, and it will be, I know, awaited with interest in Scotland.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Do I understand that there is to be an announcement in the autumn of the Government's long-term policy?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I said that it is intended to make an announcement in the autumn, in the new Session, on the Government's long-term policy for beef, and that this will be of particular interest to Scotland, where we are much interested in the beef industry and where we are particularly interested in the production of high-quality beef. I am able to say no more now, because the announcement has not yet been made, but the problem of the special treatment of high-quality beef is particularly under our examination in preparing for this announcement.
Let me now speak of another question altogether, that is, animal diseases. This must be rather a patchwork statement because I have to cover so many of the activities of the Department. Animal diseases cause immense loss annually in Scotland as in every country. An account of the current work of the Animal Diseases Research Association will be found on pages 42 and 43 of the report of the Department. The discoveries of preventive measures against certain sheep diseases have already been the means of saving large sums annually to the sheep farmers of Scotland, but there are still many pressing problems of animal diseases unsolved, and perhaps the most serious of all is that of grass sickness in horses, a disease which, I confess, has so far baffled all effort to deal with it. It has assumed alarming proportions in certain parts of the country, particularly in the north during the summer. During the present season the Animal Diseases Research Association has been concentrating all available staff on investigation of this disease. A team of five workers was continually engaged at Guthrie, Angus, where their moveable laboratory was stationed. Proposals are at present being considered for strengthening the staff of the Association and for augmenting its capacity to investigate this and other diseases of livestock in Scotland. The Agricultural Research Council have been invited to consider the possibility of assisting in a more extensive investigation of the disease.
I would stress the point that we are well aware of the serious danger of this grass sickness, and the fact that it has hitherto baffled the experts is not in any way causing us to slacken our efforts but rather to increase them, so that we can get to the bottom of this disease. It has been possible to set aside a number of possible causes of the spread of this disease as unlikely to be positive. But the investigation must proceed.
Contagious abortion, tuberculosis and mastitis also cause heavy losses to cattle breeders and milk producers in Scotland. Schemes of investigation concerning these diseases are being conducted in concert with the Agricultural Research Council. We are also conducting investigation into fowl paralysis among poultry flocks. What is worrying us most is the disease of grass

sickness and we have in hand a special investigation of this disease.
I turn now to the question of livestock improvement. It is agreed on all sides that everything possible should be done to encourage home breeding of good quality stock. This applies to sheep and other livestock as well as cattle. The Department's report gives an account of assistance given by grants and premiums for livestock improvement, particularly in the Highland counties. Last year on this occasion my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned that he had in view the question of a review of all the schemes for livestock improvement. In pursuance of that he set up an inquiry, which was placed in the hands of Lord Rowallan, Major Keith, of Pitmedden, Aberdeen, and Professor White, of Bangor, and it has already made considerable progress in surveying the operation of these schemes. Amongst other questions these gentlemen will advise us on the question of grants in aid of heavy horse-breeding, the discontinuance of which has been a matter of complaint in the last two years. We are awaiting the report of this committee in considering what should be done in regard to heavy horse-breeding. I know that it is a subject of special interest to a number of Members of this Committee. Smallholders in Orkney have expressed their special interest in the question.
Now I turn to the question of milk. First of all I would speak of the attested herds scheme, the aim of which is the purification of the milk supply by the eradication of tuberculosis from dairy herds. For this purpose funds are provided under Section 9 of the Milk Act, 1934. Under the scheme as recently amended a bonus of a penny will be paid through the Milk Marketing Boards on every gallon of milk from an attested herd. Previously this bonus was paid only in respect of milk which did not find a market as Grade A (T.T.) milk under the Milk (Special Designations) Order. Financial assistance will also be offered to herd-owners to help them to meet veterinary charges for the tuberculin-testing of their cattle, and so to enable them, when herds are clear of tuberculosis, to apply for a certificate of attestation. The amended scheme also makes provision for the co-operation of local authorities and their staffs, which


we regard as most desirable, and it enables private veterinary surgeons to be employed on the duty of tuberculin testing. The number of herds in Scotland now attested as free of tuberculosis is 141, and the number of cattle included in them is well over 11,000. It is expected that the new proposals will produce a rapid and substantial increase in this number. There is evidence of steady advance in this matter. The number of herds attested as clear is not only relatively but absolutely greater than the number cleared in England and Wales.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware where these herds are located? Is it not true that almost half of them are in Ayrshire?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I shall be glad to look into those details. Generally speaking the gratifying fact is that they are all over the Border, and we are making an advance in this line which we are glad to see.
The cleaning up of dairy herds is just one, though an important, aspect of the problem of ensuring an abundant supply of good and pure milk to the people. I may not be in order in speaking at length on this subject, but in the Debate on health and housing and in an earlier Debate on nutrition the other day, emphasis was laid on the importance of this subject. There is uppermost in the minds of many people the particular difficulty in which the Scottish Milk Marketing Scheme is now. I shall refer to that subject later. I do not want that consideration to blind people's minds to the fact that there is most useful work being done for milk producers and milk consumers in Scotland under the Marketing Boards.
There was some decline in the consumption of milk in the schools during the winter months, no doubt due, in part at least, to the fact that cold milk is not so popular a drink in winter: but with the return to milder weather there was a considerable improvement in the spring, although the number of children participating in the scheme is well below last year's figure. Under the Scottish Board's scheme, during May the average number of children supplied per day was 312,000, compared with over 400,000 in the corresponding month of last year. Of the total quantity of milk supplied during May over 93 per cent. was Grade A

(T.T.). Why there are not so many children taking milk in the schools is a question which is rather perplexing. There is no effort made to curtail supplies; rather the reverse. Apart from the effect of weather conditions, various reasons are given for the fall in consumption, such as that the novelty has worn off; a distaste for milk as too dull; the lack of enthusiasm on the part of parents; and here is a further reason, that senior pupils—and particularly the female senior pupils—are of opinion that milk is fattening. I pass that reason on to the Committee as I receive it, but I find it hard to believe that the senior pupils of that age are concerned with questions of this nature. Active propaganda is undertaken by the Board, in co-operation with educational bodies, with a view to stimulating the demand. We shall do all in our power to press forward this scheme, which is of real value to the children.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: There are 248 different methods for consuming milk, according to the milk bars in London and Glasgow. Would the Under-Secretary not consider making milk a little more attractive to those who have fallen back in their enthusiasm?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I shall certainly pass on that suggestion. There is a difficulty, of course, in running an ice-cream soda fountain in every school. There can be no doubt as to the nourishing value of milk. Let me refer here to what is being done in Glasgow. An interesting experimental scheme is being carried out there. The board have established four children's milk centres for the sale of Grade A (T.T.) milk to be sold at reduced prices, for consumption on the premises by children between the ages of two and 15 years. Very satisfactory results have been obtained during the first two weeks of the scheme. An average of about 8,000 children a day have been supplied with milk. It is an experiment but it seems to be an experiment that is catching on. Good progress has been made with the inquiry into the nutritional value of milk. About 1,500 children attending schools in Renfrewshire have participated in an experiment carried out over a period of one year on similar lines to tests carried out at centres in England. The preparation of statistical analyses of the results of the tests will take some time. We are


fully alive to the value of milk as providing nourishment for young people.
I want to say something on a question which is occupying a good deal of attention in reference to the Milk Board, and that is the Ferrier case. A difficult situation has been created by the recent judgment of the House of Lords in the Ferrier case. As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his replies to questions last week and again to-day, the Board, who met last week and again this afternoon, must be guided by their own advisers, or if necessary by the court, as to what action they can or cannot take to comply with the law as laid down; but beyond that it is for them to decide whether to submit amendments to the Scheme with a view to securing an equitable adjustment for the future of the rates of contribution of various categories of producers in the light of the decision referred to. The procedure for carrying through any amendments is laid down in the First Schedule to the Act of 1931. The position, of course, is complicated by the fact that the Reorganisation Commission, which is reviewing the whole position with regard to the milk marketing schemes, has not yet reported. I understand that the report may be issued before the House reassembles. It is clear that any proposals for amendment of the Scottish scheme will have to be considered in relation to the possibilities of more comprehensive changes. We shall certainly consult the Commission at an early stage on any amendments submitted to us by the Board in this connection.
I wish to speak of the development service dealt with in Chapter III of the report of the Department. With regard to bracken, my right hon. Friend announced in the House in April last that in view of the urgency of the problem he had approved a scheme of financial assistance for cutting bracken by machines, two types of which had been tested. The scheme provides for grants of 25 per cent. towards the cost of purchase or hire of machines.

Mr. HARDIE: What is done with the bracken when it is cut?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The problem is not so much to dispose of the

bracken as to make the land available for culture. There have been applications for assistance involving the purchase of 57 machines and the expenditure of £1,748 by way of grants has been approved. It is estimated that these machines will cut the equivalent of 8,000 acres of dense bracken twice at the proper time each year. Experiment has proved that to ensure its complete eradication bracken must be cut twice yearly at the proper times for about three years, and it is on this condition that grants are made.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: In what counties are these machines being used?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I cannot say without notice. There is some dissatisfaction that grants are not made for hand cutting of bracken. In certain districts it is impossible for machines to operate, and we have considered that it was important to bring into cultivation in the first instance land of a higher productive capacity where the machines have proved their value.
Another question with regard to the improvement of land is that of liming. The need for increasing the use of lime on agricultural land has been engaging the attention of the Department. It is believed that much of the arable and pasture land in Scotland is deficient in lime. In December last year the Department set up a committee consisting of representatives of the Department, the three Scottish Agricultural Colleges, and the Macaulay Institute for Soil Research, to consider the problem and to make recommendations. Following on the recommendations of the committee the agricultural colleges were asked to extend their experiments in liming and to disseminate knowledge on the subject by field demonstrations, lectures, articles and other methods. It is gratifying to learn from reports from the colleges that the practice of liming is increasing. We are closely watching this matter, because it is our view that the use of more lime on the land in Scotland would greatly benefit the land and ought to be encouraged. I will turn to another subject—

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Will the Under-Secretary tell us something about land drainage, and what the Government intend to do in that direction?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Perhaps I might be allowed to deal with the subjects on my notes, and if I do not deal with land drainage and other questions which hon. Members may wish to raise, my right hon. Friend may touch on them when he replies.
I want to speak on insurance and wages. Within the scope of this Debate I cannot develop that subject, but it would be right before passing on to other work of the Department in connection with land settlement to refer to matters affecting the welfare of farm workers. The Unemployment Insurance scheme affecting 100,000 farm servants in Scotland has had a smooth start with no more friction than one would expect with a new machine. I cannot fully develop the question of wages and working conditions. The report has been received from the committee presided over by Lord Caithness. That committee was set up because attempts were made some time ago, with the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, to initiate conciliation machinery on a voluntary basis. This attempt did not succeed, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in considering representations that machinery should be set up, felt that before any action was taken on this important question there ought to be an impartial inquiry into the position. He, therefore, set up the committee, under the Chairmanship of Lord Caithness, to inquire into the conditions of service and remuneration of farm workers in Scotland and to make recommendations. The committee's report was published on the 13th of this month. It is an interesting and comprehensive report, and the committee's unanimous view is that machinery should be set up for wage regulation in Scotland. The Secretary of State has the report under consideration, and an announcement of the Government's decision on it will be made in due course.
The activities of the Department in regard to land settlement are directed in the main to the furtherance of two schemes of land settlement, first, that approved by the House in 1934, when increased money was granted for the provision of self-supporting smallholdings for qualified applicants; and, second, the provision of plots of land of from one quarter of an acre to possibly one acre in the neighbourhood of towns and villages.

This will enable unemployed men who are anxious to do something to have an opportunity of useful and helpful work and to produce supplies of fresh vegetables for household consumption. Last year, in the Debate on these Estimates, my right hon. Friend predicted that 500 new holdings would be settled during the year—a record number for Scotland. His expectations were realised, and during 1935 over 500 families were settled on the land in self-contained equipped smallholdings.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: Can the Minister give the counties where these are?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: If I were to state all the parts of the country where these were established, it would take a long time, but I shall be glad to let the hon. Member know. I could mention the number of them in the industrial areas of Scotland, but without going into it more fully I cannot give all the information now which the hon. Member desires. During the year the development of the programme was continued by the acquisition of 11 properties covering 1,455 acres mainly in the vicinity of markets in the industrial belt, that is, Clydebank, Ayr, Kirkintilloch, Johnstone and Stirling, with one property in Perthshire and one in the Black Isle, Easter Ross. These purchases were augmented by the generous gift of Dryburgh Farm near Dundee by Mr. James Mathew. Altogether since 1934 the Department has completed or has in hand land to complete schemes providing for the settlement of 878 families on equipped smallholdings. Hon. Members will find a great deal of information in the report about the areas where these settlements are being carried out.
The scheme for the provision of plots for unemployed men has been continued. The improvement in industrial employment and the difficulty of securing suitable land in the vicinity of the men's homes have made it difficult for us to accelerate action as much as we would have liked. The scheme has expanded and now comprises some 1,400 acres and 113 centres serving the needs of between 1,900 to 2,000 plot holders. These holders are in the first year charged no rent, and they receive a loan from the Department to enable them to make a start with the cultivation of their plots. During the


year under review it was possible to arrange for certain additional assistance to be given to these men after their first year of occupancy of their plots. The Joint Committee of the Scottish Union of Allotment Holders and the Society of Friends now provides seeds, lime and fertilisers in bulk to group secretaries at reduced rates, and men who have shown promise during the first year may apply to the joint committee for a loan up to £10 to enable them to purchase poultry or other small stock.
I would like to refer to what we call the "ladder" for passing men on from one type of holding to a larger one. During the year an important link has been established between the plot and the self-supporting smallholding. Some plotholders have done sufficiently well to lead them to hope that they will qualify to become independent again as smallholders. In certain cases the Department agree that plotholders can be expected to become reasonably efficient smallholders provided they have adequate guidance at the outset and can command sufficient resources to permit them to stock and work a smallholding. In these circumstances the Special Areas Commissioner—for many of these plots are in the Special Areas—agreed to provide funds to afford a number of plotholders an opportunity of entering on a period of training on holdings provided by the Department. The purpose of our scheme is to lead the men on from something in a small way until they can become independent and settle on smallholdings. We have to choose the personnel for that experiment carefully, for the risk of a number of failures would cause discouragement among the men and discredit on the work of the Department. In the Dundee district a further generous gift of funds by Mr. James Mathew, to whose work and help in land settlement I should like to pay a tribute, has enabled a similar scheme to be started there. The Carnegie Trustees has decided to make available an experimental loan fund of £5,000 to assist men who are not in the Special Areas or the Dundee district. An association is in process of being formed to administer the fund. This is a practical experiment which we believe is well worth trying, and we intend to push on with the "ladder" scheme.
On the last occasion when these Estimates were discussed a good deal was said about the sheep stock loans, and subsequently my right hon. Friend found it possible to announce a substantial concession to the borrowers of these loans. The period of moratorium, previously fixed at two years from Martinmas, 1932, was extended for another year to Martinmas, 1935; and it was decided that thereafter no charges in respect of interest would accrue for five years. This concession extends the whole period during which relief in respect of loan payments is given to eight years, which, the House will agree, is an adequate way of dealing with the situation. I mention that because last year the position of holders in the Highlands and Islands was mentioned, and it was stressed that some concession was necessary for those who had taken these loans. In addition to land settlement, the Department have made progress in regard to the improvement of conditions in the congested district of the crofting counties.
The provision of funds for public works in those districts is a matter of great interest to some of my hon. Friends, who will note that it was found possible to arrange for a large increase in the provision for this service during 1935–6 of £20,000. A similar provision is included in the Estimates now before the Committee. While I do not suggest that this sum is sufficient to satisfy more than a proportion of the applications made to that Department for assistance, it is a substantial contribution towards the provision and improvement of roads and piers in the crofting areas, and the Department, in co-operation with the respective local authorities, deal with cases to which these authorities give priority. The programme of assistance this year provides for the construction or improvement of roads in Argyllshire (Islay and Mull), Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty (Lewis), Inverness-shire (Skye and the Outer Islands), and Zetland, and for assistance in marine works in Lewis, the Outer Isles and Zetland. There are, I am aware, numerous other roads and marine works which local authorities would like to assist, but I am afraid the whole programme can be dealt with only over a period of years. I do stress that the increased Estimate for £20,000 is budgeted


for again this year for these purposes.
Anyone who visits the Highlands and Islands cannot help being impressed by the evidence of improved housing in the townships. I was there during the Whitsun Recess, and while there is much yet to be done, and I do not Suggest that there is not, I wish to impress upon the House and those who are, perhaps, not familiar with those areas, that strides forward are really being made in the housing conditions in those Outer Isles. Earlier this year I could not help expressing the hope that this work would continue unabated. The Committee will be glad to hear that during the year under review, 221 loans, totalling £26,795, were approved, that building materials were supplied to the value of £50,560, quite a substantial contribution; and that the net expenditure on assisting rural housing was £34,175, against £21,139 in the previous year. I repeat those figures, because they show a marked increase in the work which the Department is doing. In my opinion there is no expenditure from which more benefit is derived than that spent on improving the housing conditions of these people.
There are many other subjects with which the Department deals, but I must leave them in order to allow hon. Members an opportunity to express their views and to raise points to which my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate will reply. In conclusion I would say that while we make no extravagant claims in regard to land development and kindred services, because we know there is much yet to be done, we submit that the work of placing 500 families on self-supporting smallholdings, with good modern houses where children can be raised in decent healthy surroundings; of providing land for the unemployed; of extending facilities to unemployed plotholders to enable them to develop their plots to the best advantage; of placing within reach of unemployed plotholders a ladder whereby the competent man may hope to attain independence on a smallholding; and the provision of amenities in the crofting areas, is not only more than has been done before, but is a very substantial contribution to the well-being of Scotland.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not want to follow up the various subjects touched upon by the Under-Secretary. I wish to confine my remarks to the same limit as under the self-denying ordinance on the last occasion when the Scottish Estimates were under consideration. We feel, of course, that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, whoever opens the Debate, is entitled to a much longer time than the rest of us wish to take, in order to have an opportunity to explain more fully the work being done by the Department, and the same rule ought to apply to the Lord Advocate, who is going to reply, because there are before us some touchy questions which will call forth from him a good deal of his skill if a satisfactory answer is to be found. The Under-Secretary dealt with the report submitted by the Committee, over whom Lord Caithness presided, set up to discuss the wages and emoluments of agricultural workers in Scotland. In his speech he, in a manner, described the comparative success of Scottish agriculture in the year covered by the report, but it seems to me that that measure of moderate success has not been reflected in the lot of the agricultural workers. On page 17 of the report there is a statement of the wages paid in three different periods of years. Since 1935 the wages of married ploughmen have gone down by 4s. 3d., single ploughmen by 6s., cattle men, married, by 3s. 11d., and shepherds by 3s. 7d. In view of the success, moderate though it be, which is claimed for Scottish farming one would have thought some advantage would have come to those who are working on the farms, without the necessity of any committee being set up.

Mr. McKIE: Can the hon. Member mention any counties or places to which his references to wages apply?

Mr. MACLEAN: No, I am quoting from the report, which no doubt the hon. Member will have seen. The wages are given there for the three years 1925, 1930 and 1935, and they show a continuous decrease. I suggest that in setting up that committee the farming community in Scotland merely staved off the day when they will have to meet the requests of Scottish farm workers, and the very fact that that committee was set up, and that


their report is now in the hands of the Scottish public, leads me to suggest to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary who, I take it, will have to consider the report, with advice from his officers, that in putting forward legislative proposals arising out of it they should avoid a repetition of the farcical position in connection with the Milk Marketing Board. In that case we gave to a certain body certain powers which have turned out to be ineffectual, and in consequence there has been legal action and we have seen chaotic conditions in the whole of the operations of the Milk Marketing Board. We do not want to have similar conditions in regard to farming operations arising out of mishandled interpretations of legislation on the part of the Scottish Office.
The Under-Secretary also touched on the question of agricultural holdings, a point upon which I had intended to raise certain questions. He was quite pleased with this Department. If not wholly satisfied with the success achieved he feels, at any rate, that a great advance has been made. He said that 878 persons had been placed on equipped holdings and over 500, I take it, placed within the past year. I would draw attention to the chaotic position which still exists in regard to smallholdings. There have been more than 28,000 applications for smallholdings since 1912, and of those 12,000 have been withdrawn. Of the applications withdrawn 5,000 were by ex-service men, who had trusted to the promise that they were coming back to a land fit for heroes and were going to have their share of that land. Tables in the appendices at the end of the report give the figures in detail and so I will not read them, but I suggest that in view of those figures all cannot be well with the work of placing men on the land. It is to be remarked that it is mainly in the years that have followed the War that the applicants have been so numerous, and the withdrawals also equally numerous. I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should consult together, and also consult with those responsible for this branch of administration, to find out why these applications have been withdrawn. Although I do not represent a crofting constituency I have received many applications from those areas, I expect because

the people there believe that my name entitles me to represent them as well as to represent an industrial constituency. If there is any grievance in the Western Isles or in the crofting counties and they believe I can do anything about it the people write to me, and I have had innumerable cases in which ex-service men and others have complained of having waited years for smallholdings, and in sheer disgust at waiting, and the failure to obtain any information from the Scottish Office or the Department of Agriculture as to the possibility of obtaining holdings, they have ultimately withdrawn their applications and continued to carry on as best they could. It would be interesting, before the next report is issued, if the Scottish Office would endeavour to find out the causes which compelled those 12,000 applicants to withdraw their application—at least in the majority of cases, because I do not expect it would be possible to ascertain it in all cases.
The Minister was asked about land drainage. He stated that he did not propose to touch on that subject, but would leave any point concerning it to the Lord Advocate. Might I point out that several instances are given in the report where attempts have been made, under the 1930 Act, to bring about schemes of land drainage in certain parts of Scotland? The Scottish Office have been compelled to drop some of those owing, I take it, to the opposition of intrested parties who own land in the vicinity, or in the actual locality, where the land drainage is required. It is interesting now to note that so far as that vexed part of Scotland is concerned, which has been constantly flooded by the River Kelvin, the Stirlingshire area, the Scottish Office has now taken its courage into its hands and has determined to apply the Act of 1930 to that area at a cost, I understand, of something amounting to £2,900.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: A sum of £27,000 has been set aside for that purpose.

Mr. MACLEAN: There is no indication of that in the official report, which I have here, and which states that approximately £2,500 will be applied to flooding in that area.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It is approximately £27,000.

Mr. MACLEAN: I would like to know what it is intended to do with the Garmouth area in which there is constant flooding? There seems to be some objection or difference of opinion between the Duke and the railway company who own the bridges which span the River Spey, just below the village of Garmouth, and which helps to dam the river and to cause the flooding which takes place there at certain periods when there is excessive rainfall. While that difference of opinion exists, those who are living in the village of Garmouth are put to a considerable amount of inconvenience by the constant flooding, which sometimes almost washes them out of their houses. I would like to know what is being done in that area.
According to the report, certain objections have been taken by interested parties, I take it, to what was proposed in the River Nith area. The Government and the Scottish Office have been compelled to drop the scheme which they were preparing. If there is any idea of betterment of the people who are living in those areas, and who are at present subjected to floods during the rainy season, the Government ought not to allow individual interests to stand in the way of the good of the community. They have powers under the 1930 Act and they have allowed that Act to be almost smothered. Only persistent agitation compelled them to deal with the River Kelvin area. I suggest that the Government should take advantage of the powers afforded in the 1930 Act and, where any individual owner of land or any other interested local party is endeavouring to dam back the attempts of the Scottish Office to create a system which would bring considerable benefit to the community, those powers should be put into operation. They should get compulsory powers to do these things.
Once the Scottish Office do so, they will bring benefit to certain areas which the community find it almost impossible to use at present, because of the risks of periodical flooding. Many tracts of country in Scotland could be brought into cultivation by a sane system of drainage. I suggest again to the Under-Secretary of State that the powers which are in existence in the Act should be put into operation. If the Lord Advocate would apply the law in the manner that

is best suited for the community, and not for the Government, I am convinced that we could put the plan through and render some of these parts of Scotland suitable for cultivation.

4.51 p.m.

Sir MALCOLM BARCLAY-HARVEY: I am sure hon. Members will agree with me that we have been given an extremely interesting description by the Under-Secretary of the various activities of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland. I could not help thinking, as I listened to what he said, that we are very well off in having a Department of Agriculture of our own. It has been suggested that we might have our agriculture put under the English Department, but I should very much regret that change. At the present time we have, in this Department, I believe, one that really does understand Scottish needs in a way that nobody in London could do. We are far better off than if we were looked upon as an appendage to some English Department. I hope that the suggestion will receive no further consideration.
I was interested to hear from my right hon. and gallant Friend about smallholdings. I have watched the scheme which was instituted in 1934 with very great interest and sympathy, and it is no small achievement—indeed it is a very great achievement—to have managed to put no fewer than 5,000 families on the land in the course of one year. I should like the Lord Advocate to tell us a little more about how many of the people are getting on. The Under-Secretary did not attempt to give us all the details, but only some interesting figures. Many of us in Scotland are watching this scheme with very great interest, because we believe it will be of real value to the people of Scotland. I am not going to exaggerate that side of the subject. We all know that you cannot judge agriculture in Scotland merely by the success, as I believe it to be, of a scheme of this sort. These smallholdings are undoubtedly specialised holdings which cannot be put down in any part of Scotland, and they form only a comparatively small part of the holdings, which exist, or did exist, in many parts of Scotland.
I am sorry to see that, despite constant attention by a very efficient Department of the Government, agriculture in Scotland is by no means in the condition


which many of us would like to see, particularly in the North-East of Scotland, and the part which I have the honour to represent. It is just as well that I should give one or two figures to show in what state some of this agriculture now is. The figures are not unknown to my right hon. and gallant Friend, but I do not think they are fully appreciated by all hon. Members or that they can be stressed overmuch. A very good illustration of the position of agriculture is found in the figure of how much land is under cultivation. I find that, since 1913, the area of land under cultivation in the North-Eastern division of Scotland, has fallen by 18,449 acres and, if you take arable land, apart from land under grass, by 51,004 acres. I find that the total number of people employed in 1913 was 35,334 and in 1935 had fallen to 23,326. That is a very serious fall, as hon. Members will agree.
If we consider the valuation figures for agricultural subjects in that district, they will show whether agriculture is paying or not. If your agricultural valuation is going down, that is a very good sign that your agriculture is not nourishing. The gross annual value of agricultural subjects has fallen by no less than £14,506 since 1913–14, before there was any deflation. Since 1925–26, when deflation had been going on for some years, it has fallen in that district, by £84,956. Grassland, which was referred to the other day, gives another good illustration of the state of things. On 12 typical Aberdeenshire farms, the rent has fallen 21.4 per cent. since 1913–14, and, in the case of 11 others, 28.5 per cent.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Does the hon. Gentlemen, mean 21 per cent. lower than the 1913–14 figures?

Sir M. BARCLAY-HARVEY: I mean 21 per cent. lower than it was in 1913–14. That is not a very pretty picture, I agree, but it would have been a very great deal worse if it had not been for the action taken by the Government, and by the previous Government, during the last five years. I trust that my right hon. and gallant Friend will carefully watch this matter, because the people are having a very difficult time, and are looking for some practical help. I know we have his sympathy.
I cannot go into the major question to-day, because it involves legislation, but there are one or two things, small by comparison, in which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman can help. The first is in respect of a matter to which he has already referred, grass sickness in horses. This is becoming a serious question in Scotland. In Aberdeenshire alone, during the period from 1st May to 2nd July, 477 horses are said to have died from this disease. That is an increase of 33 per cent. over the corresponding period of last year, representing 2.3 per cent. of the entire horse population of Aberdeenshire, and means a loss of £20,000 in one county alone. That is going on all over Scotland, and will be seen to be a very serious problem. Hon. Members were pleased, and the people of Scotland will all be pleased, to hear the statement of my right hon. Gentleman that he is pressing forward with investigations into this matter. I want to make quite certain that none of the results of the inquiry is stifled. The question is far too serious for the welfare of Scotland. It is one of the ways that we can save money by spending.
On the question of bracken cutting machinery for Scotland, can my right hon. and gallant Friend give us a little information about how the scheme will work? It has great possibilities, and I should like to know whether the way in which these machines are driven is as satisfactory as we all hope. It is a good thing to know that considerable advantage is being given. I should like to know a little more about it. Then on the question of land drainage; here again, now that we are entering into a time of greater prosperity in the country, if not in agriculture, I hope that the Government may consider increasing some of the grants. In very large areas, difficulty arises by the drainage of an important burn; the difficulty is to raise funds. Perhaps that is one of the best ways to help agriculture in many parts of the country.
There is an extremely valuable Blue Book on the agricultural outlook for Scotland. The last issue, for the year 1930, appeared in 1933. That Blue Book is a mine of useful information. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether one is going to be produced for 1935, and, if not, why not. I should also like, if it is possible, to see it produced more quickly


than was the last one. I know the immense amount of work that is entailed in producing a volume of this sort, but it is so important that I hope we shall be able to have it as early as possible. Moreover, in view of its great usefulness, could not we have it at shorter intervals than every five years—say every three years, or possibly two? The more information that we can get on these matters the better, and I believe that this would be another small practical way of assisting our agricultural industry.

5.1 p.m.

Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: In the first place, I should like to congratulate the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who opened the Debate on having given us such an interesting survey of the problems of his Department. I think it may be said that there are two assumptions which underlie many of the speeches that are made in these debates on Scottish Estimates. The first is that the Secretary of State for Scotland, from whatever party he may be drawn, is a foolish, incompetent, and lethargic, administrator, a witless and helpless tool in the hands of unscrupulous party managers on the one hand and of the hide-bound officials of his Department on the other; while the second is that the Under-Secretary of State, from whatever party he may be drawn, is a man of ability, energy and independence of character. Nobody, I think, would come to either the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) or to me for an impartial judgment on the truth of the first assumption; but, as neither of us has filled the office of Under-Secretary, we may, I think, without immodesty, acclaim and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will join me in acclaiming, the truth of the second proposition; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under-Secretary, by his speech this afternoon, has shown himself to be a worthy successor in a long line of able predecessors.
There were so many points in the speech of the Under-Secretary that it is impossible for me to deal with them all, but one of the first which he mentioned was the very important one of animal diseases. I agree, with what he and the hon. Member for Kincardine (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey) said about the great importance at the present time of the

question of grass disease, and there are other diseases which are also very important. I think the whole question of animal disease is one which demands a great effort on the part of the Government to deal with it. Indeed, that was the opinion, not only of the present Government, but also of their immediate predecessors. I think it was the first National Government who appointed the Animal Diseases Committee of the Economic Advisory Council. That committee produced a very valuable report about a year ago, and I should like to know from the Lord Advocate, when he comes to reply, what steps the Government propose to take in order to carry out the recommendations of that report. Of course, one vital scientific question is that of cleaning up the herds, and tackling, in particular, the problems of tuberculosis, contagious abortion, mastitis, and the other diseases, of which these are the chief, which require to be dealt with. I should like to know what the Government propose to do in order to carry out the recommendations of that committee. It is satisfactory to know that some progress is being made with tuberculosis, and, although it may be true that, as was said, I think, by an hon. Member above the Gangway, many of these herds which are being cleaned up are located in Ayrshire, that is due to the fact that there was instituted in that county the scheme of the Department of Agriculture which included the free distribution of tuberculin, of which advantage was widely taken and which has been an immense success in that county. I believe that, if the Government would accept the recommendations of the Animal Diseases Committee on that subject, a very much greater and quicker advance could be made.
Then the Under-Secretary gave us an interesting description of the plight of agriculture in Scotland, and we followed closely his exposition of the fundamental principles on which the Government's policy is based. There is no doubt whatever about the seriousness of the plight of agriculture in Scotland at the present time. We were told in 1931 that all the ills of agriculture were due to Free Trade, and that immediately Protection was given the difficulties of the farmer would disappear. We have now had nearly five years of Protection, boards and subsidies,


and the Government claim that they have done more for agriculture than any other Government in history. Yet the monthly index of prices, although the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may find some encouragement by comparing it with the first six months of last year, is still far below the first six months of 1931, which was the crisis year of the Free Trade years, and the farmer now is not only getting less for his produce, but is paying anything up to 60 per cent. more than he ought to be paying, and would be paying under Free Trade, for his feeding stuffs and fertilisers; and, in spite of the favourable turn in the trade cycle during the past few years, and the expansion of the purchasing power of the consumer, farming is still a woefully depressed industry. Ministers tell us that it is all due to over-production, but it is due to nothing of the kind. Over-production is a bogey of the Protectionist mind. It is due, as I have consistently argued, to under-consumption, and our arguments are now receiving overwhelming proof from scientific reports on the physique and nutrition of the nation, and from the most recent report by the League of Nations Committee on the problem of nutrition.
Moreover, it is clear from these reports that the indispensable condition of an adequate nutrition policy is an ample supply of fresh foods like milk and eggs and vegetables—the kind of foods in which we have an immense natural advantage over any foreign competition. Of these foods, of course, by far the most important is milk. In these Debates I have quoted before, but it is so significant that I make no apology for quoting it again, the opinion of Professor Pattison that, if the average daily consumption of milk per head in Scotland could be raised by a quarter of a pint, we should require 100,000 more cows and 10,000 more workers on the land to look after them, and even then our consumption would only be about half the consumption per head in Sweden. If we raised our consumption of milk to the level of the Swedish figure, it is doubtful whether, with the methods of agriculture now in vogue in Scotland, there would be enough land in the country to carry the cows that we should need in order to supply the milk required by our people. It is, therefore, in the interests both of

farming and, what is much more important, of the health of our people, that there should be a complete and radical change in the agricultural policy which the present Government are pursuing with such meagre and deplorable results.
In the time that I have left I can only say a very few words on four other important points. First, with regard to the depredations of deer, it is true that would require legislation, and, therefore, I am not going to attempt to discuss the merits of any proposals which ought to be brought before this House, but I do say that some proposals ought to be brought forward. At the time when I occupied, for over a year, the office which the right hon. Gentleman now holds, I found that this matter had engaged the attention of my predecessors. Inquiries were being conducted, committees were meeting, and I thought that matters had been carried very nearly to the point of decision. Nevertheless, if the right hon. Gentleman had told me that he needed another year of committee meetings and consultation with interests and so forth, I, who had taken one, could hardly have refused him another, and I might even have allowed him a second year without very serious complaint. But four years have elapsed since then, and, if the interests cannot now be brought together in agreement, I say that the right hon. Gentleman should take the course which a Government has to take in such circumstances, of coming here and producing the best proposals that he can draft and submitting them to the judgment of the House. The matter is urgent, and ought to be dealt with now, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will table his proposals at the earliest moment.
I should like to say a word about one sorely depressed section of the agricultural industry in Scotland, and that is the crofting and smallholdings industry. The people in that industry are having very hard times. They are the people with the least elbow-room; they have the least margin; and I suggest that very special steps ought to be taken to consider their problem in the hard times through which they are passing. The Secretary of State—this was before the present Under-Secretary took over the administration of the Department—met my representations on the subject of the sheep stock clubs in a generous spirit. I have said so in this House before, and


I have said so in the country to the people whom I have met there, and I am grateful to him for the two successive moratoria which he has given. My only complaint in that regard, though perhaps I ought not to mention it in the Debate on these Estimates, is that, while he is giving these advantages, which he is only giving because he realises their absolute necessity and fairness, the Treasury is coming down on these people and, for the first time since these clubs were constituted, is asking them to pay Income Tax. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence on behalf of these crofters to stop these absurd claims being made.
With regard to housing, the Under-Secretary referred to the improvements that are taking place. That is quite true, and I have seen it myself, particularly in the Western Isles. But at the same time, as he also said, though he did not emphasise it, and I desire to emphasise it now, there is a shocking amount of bad housing in these small townships, which one can see if one goes off the main roads. I would urge that, if possible, some concession should be made in the matter of interest rates on housing loans. I do not want to go into that matter now, because it is the subject of a considerable correspondence between myself and the Secretary of State. But I still hope he will be able to give that measure of encouragement to housing which I have proposed. Perhaps the Lord Advocate may be able to lift a corner of the curtain which hides the deliberations of the rural advisory committee, and tell us whether they are dealing with this question of housing in the crofting areas, because, especially now that the new Act is on the Statute Book, with its high criterion in regard to overcrowding, a very formidable problem is presented to the county councils in the Highlands and Islands.
With regard to bracken, I was dissatisfied with what the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said about not giving the grants to people who cannot use machines. It is just these small crofters in these poorest counties, with the poorest land, who are hit by this refusal to give the grants to people who cannot afford to have machines, or who cannot use them because of the rocks and boulders on the ground. I would ask him to reconsider that point, because it is the

small crofter in the Highlands, with a little holding of barren, rocky land, who most needs every encouragement to improve that land and increase the number of sheep which he is able to keep on it. The continuation of the increased grant for roads and piers is very much appreciated in the Highland counties. There is still great need of more work on these side and township roads and piers.
My third point is on the question of farm servants' wages which I raised on the Estimates last year when the right hon. Gentleman asked me to put down a further question at the end of the Session. He said he had a scheme for instituting a voluntary method of collective bargaining between farmers and farm servants, and in the answer to my question it was revealed that the farmers were being very backward in coming into these voluntary schemes. I have expressed my approval of the right hon. Gentleman's action in trying these schemes. The farm servants themselves were reluctant to adopt the principle of wages boards and I make no complaint at all of the Government for not rushing into that system. I applaud the fact that they tried the voluntary method first, but it has failed and we have to face it. Now he has received an authoritative and weighty report from the committee of which Lord Caithness was chairman, and I hope he will be able to announce the acceptance in due course of those proposals.
The last point that I should like to mention is the question of land settlement. The Under-Secretary made it clear that practically all the land settlement that is going on is going on in the industrial districts. There are people in rural districts, especially in the Highlands, who have been applying for years for holdings and really more ought to be done in the Highland counties. It is not true that land is not available. There is plenty of land. It is not true that there are no applicants. There are many hundreds—I should not be exaggerating if I said thousands. I press the right hon. Gentleman to give more attention in matters of land settlement to the Highlands.
Let me say in conclusion that the agricultural situation seems to me to have two things in common with the international situation which we were discussing yesterday. On the one hand it is very grave and in some parts of the country


it is hardly better than it was in the depth of the depression four years ago. On the other hand, it is also hopeful for there is an opportunity afforded to agriculture to render now a new and great service to the health and strength of future generations of Scotsmen if the Government will adopt a bold policy of nutrition. I would, therefore, ask the Government to strike out boldly on the lines of the new policy which scientific inquiry has ascertained to be feasible and necessary in the interests of the health of the people. If he does that and gets rid of the shackles of this squalid old Protectionist policy which he has been following, he will obtain truly national support for his administration.

5.20 p.m.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should first of all like to say how glad I am that the Department has found it possible to inaugurate a system of grants for the cutting of bracken. I have not heard altogether favourable accounts of one of the machines recommended, but the Under-Secretary of State knows how very difficult much of the ground under bracken is to work with any kind of machinery. Naturally, I am most anxious to see hilly, rocky ground cleared of bracken, but I recognise that it is right to begin with the ground which it is easier to work on this method. I very much hope that he will be able to continue the system of grants next year and if possible extend them to hand cutting. I should also like to say how glad I am to have heard my right hon. and gallant Friend say that assistance is being given in the question of liming the ground. One of the last things impressed on me by one who did a great deal for Scottish agriculture, the late Lord Lovat, was how much of Scottish land needed treating with lime. I am therefore very glad indeed that encouragement is being given to farmers to use more time on their land.
Now I wish to turn to a subject which, as my right hon. and gallant Friend said, is very much in our minds, the question of the effect on the milk scheme of the recent decision in the House of Lords. I would stress the urgent need for two things, a measure of compensation for those who have been paying a levy, the greater part of which is now found to be illegal, and a drastic amendment of

the scheme for the future. I hope the Under-Secretary has not been imagining that because he has not heard much in the last 18 months of the grievances of the milk producers, that those grievances are no longer being felt. The Reorganisation Commission has been sitting during that period and everyone has felt that it was useless to say anything until it had reported. But I would remind my right hon. Friend of the terrible situation revealed in 1934 when something like, I think, 1,100 producer retailers were actually brought into court and there were many hundreds more who were groaning under the weight of a levy that they felt to be unjust. They had found their customers themselves; in many cases they were the customers they had had before the scheme came into operation. Many had been led to believe that the levy that most of them would have to pay would be at most nine-tenths of a penny. It began with nine-tenths of twopence and in a few months rose to nine-tenths of five pence. In the case of the ordinary "level" producers the price of whose milk was paid direct to the board, they had no option. The money was deducted from the price they ultimately received from the board. In the case of the producer retailers, they were paid in the ordinary course of events by their customers and then received a demand from the board for payment of the levy.
Last year I got into touch with a good many producers in my area who were suffering severely in this matter and, as a result, I have a list of cases which I will summarise, because it helps to bring home to the House what so many of these people have been suffering. All these men, and one or two women, have been engaged in milk production for a long time. Only one has been in it for as short a period as seven years; most have been in milk production from 10 to 20 or 30 years, most of them in a small way. Quite obviously some have not been in affluent circumstances, but the fact that they have been carrying on production so long shows that they have been able to get a livelihood out of it. But a levy of £20, £30, £40, or £70 being demanded from them, as was the case in the first year of the scheme, unfortunately in many cases swallowed up a great part of the actual cash profits that they had made. By the beginning of 1934, however, my right hon.


Friend had made some concessions and had appointed the Reorganisation Commission, and therefore many of the producer retailers realised that it was useless to say anything more. They had just to make the best of it; to see if they could come to terms with the board and endeavour to pay off the heavy arrears that had accumulated. I know what distress was caused to many of them in doing so. I know cases of men in a small way who with difficulty were persuaded to offer the board £3 or £4 a month and had their offers refused because that would not have meant payment in full by the end of the year.
I remember one case of a man who said he could not possibly pay a sum of that kind unless he used some capital that he had lying at the bank, as the result of the paying off of some shares. He had had his stacks and horse and cart poinded at very low prices and I pointed out to him that, unless he made an arrangement with the Board he would be sold up and would not be able to work his farm at all and, hard though it was to use some capital, it was better to do this than to lose his means of livelihood. Many said, "How long can this go on? We can pay for perhaps a few months, but we cannot go on paying for any length of time at this rate," and the result of having had to pay the levy for so long has been that during the last year many people with whom I communicated have had to sell their herds in part or in whole, which has meant either reducing production or going out of production altogether. I have a case of an old couple who had been in milk production for something like 30 years who were looking after their cows with the help of grandchildren. The result of the levy was that they had to sell the cows, the grandchildren had to leave home to find work and the old couple had to apply for the old age pension. That is a terrible state of affairs and it seems inevitable that, now that these people know that the greater part of the levy that they have been forced to pay has been on account of an illegal charge, they will feel that some compensation is due to them.
It may be said that the men who accepted the £4 a cow basis 18 months ago have been in better case than they were in the previous year when they were paying on gallonage, but on the £4 basis,

if anything happens to a cow, £4 has been paid and nothing has been received on account of that cow. The £4 basis, therefore, may not always work out to the producer's advantage, and this basis was not available to the people who were selling less than six gallons a day. Therefore there are a certain number of small producers who still sell on a gallonage basis. From my own knowledge I would say to my right hon. and gallant Friend that many of these men are simply holding on by their eyelids in the hope that the Reorganisation Commission will make some proposals which will mean a very much less intolerable burden, and in view of the House of Lords decision, I think they will feel, and, I feel, with justice, that they are entitled to some compensation. The delay in issuing the Reorganisation Commission's Report has made the burden very much heavier than it would have been had the scheme been promptly amended.
Now I do not see how my right hon. and hon. Friends can really hold that this question is one which merely concerns the board, as answers that they have given us-in the House in the last few days rather seem to suggest. I recognise, of course, that the scheme was drawn up by the producers. I recognise that it came into operation because the great majority of the producers voted for it, but I am certain that a great many farmers who voted for it did not understand it in the least.
I have found myself, entirely ignorant as I am either of milk or potato production, having to explain both potato and milk schemes to farmers in my constituency. But apart from that, the Government have taken the responsibility of approving and presenting this scheme, and Parliament took the responsibility of giving a general approval to the scheme, and I cannot see that my right hon. and hon. Friends can justly claim that the scheme is one for which only producers are responsible. But if that view is held, let us be clear about this fact. The Milk Marketing Board have no funds whatever except those which they extort from the pockets of the milk producers. Therefore, if a liability is to fall upon them for compensation—and probably large numbers will ask for compensation—the money can only be found, if it has to be found by the Board, by still further increasing the already very heavy burden on the


ordinary level producer, and the ordinary all-the-year-producer has had to pay very heavily in the last two years and a half in order to level up the price to the seasonal producer, as the scheme requires him to do.
Personally, I have, since the Government made the concession which they did 18 months ago, been trying to get producer retailers to accept the scheme and come to terms with the Board. I have done that both publicly and privately, and I am certain that the Government must have used their influence with the Milk Producers' Federation to that end, as it was believed that the levy was legal. I feel obliged therefore to stress the responsibility which rests upon the Government for finding the money to give some compensation to those who have had this illegal charge imposed upon them. If not, I am afraid there will be many hundreds of milk producers who will suffer a rankling sense of injustice, and there will be very great sympathy with them. I recognise that it may be difficult to calculate exactly what has been illegally paid, but I would ask my right hon. Friend, when he receives the figures from the Milk Board for which I have asked, to give very careful consideration to the matter and see if he cannot give something to soften what may well be a very sore and widespread sense of injustice.
My second point is that, as I think my right hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State realises, what has happened is shown to be a new defect in the scheme, and I think that it makes us all realise that there may be other defects which will need remedying. Since I began to give a good deal of consideration to this matter it has been clear to me that the scheme has two main defects. The first is that, because it is much cheaper to produce milk in the summer only, when cows are out to grass, than it is to produce milk all the year round, it was not equitable that the scheme should require a seasonal producer to receive the same price for his milk from the Board as the all-the-year-round producer. And we learnt yesterday from the reply which my right hon. Friend gave me that, as I had been previously led to believe, this provision in the scheme was fixed without any ascertainment of the varying costs of seasonal

and level production. That seems to be a very serious matter. I am told that calculations which have been made recently in the agricultural colleges show that there is a difference of about 4d. a gallon between the cost of seasonal production in South-West Scotland and level production in the East of Scotland. If that is so, it obviously imposes a tremendous burden upon the man producing milk all the year round, which, incidentally, is a much more important service to the community than merely producing milk for manufacture in summer, in that he has to make up to the seasonal producer the difference between the price received in the open market for milk and the price paid for milk in liquid form.
The other defect in this scheme is that it places on the Board an unlimited obligation to purchase any quantity of milk offered which comes up to a certain standard. Those two defects in the scheme together give the seasonal producer an obvious inducement greatly to increase his production, and as a result there has been a very great increase of the proportion that seasonal milk bears to the whole production in that part of Scotland. While the scheme was in course of preparation some figures were provided for the committee considering the scheme which went to show that the proportion of manufactured milk to the whole would be about 22 per cent. and the price of cheese was stated at that time to be 7½d. a pound. Anyone who has followed the scheme knows that the proportion of manufacturing milk in Scotland has been as high as 52 per cent., and it is obvious that the scheme has provided a very strong inducement to the producer to increase the production and every increase in production means a heavier burden for the level producer to carry.
I do not think that it should be difficult to remedy the defects. I am very glad to gather from the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend that he thinks it probable that the Board may put forward proposals and amendments and that they will be at once considered. It seems to me fundamental that the price of milk should be related to the cost of production. That is the basis of the scheme in force in Aberdeenshire and district and in Inverness-shire. There is provision in these schemes for a differential price. The producer of milk in winter gets a bigger


price than the man who produces milk only in summer. I understand that the East of Scotland Milk Producers' Federation do not want to see the scheme scrapped, but they want to make it possible for a scheme to be worked on that basis. I believe that they made proposals of this kind to the Reorganisation Commission about a year ago, and it is difficult to understand the long delay in the issue of the report of the Reorganisation Commission.
I hope that my right hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I say that I cannot help wondering whether it is that a very influential member of the commission, Sir John Orr, may perhaps be bringing before his colleagues the scheme which he has been outlining in the Press and elsewhere during the past year—some scheme of subsidising the provision of milk to a wider circle of people than that which exists at present. Without entering into the merits or demerits of a scheme of that kind, I do not see that the solution of these difficulties can be obtained along those lines. However we may increase the demand for liquid milk, it will have to continue, broadly speaking, all the year round, and as long as you leave intact a scheme which offers strong inducements to the producer of seasonal and cheap milk to increase his seasonal production, that seasonal production will increase, irrespective of what your demand is for liquid milk. I hope very much that my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary will keep that point very clearly in view and not let themselves be tempted away from a very careful and meticulous examination of the scheme by bigger proposals which possibly might emanate from the Reorganisation Commission.
I would finally suggest that they should consider the probability of uniting the whole of Scotland in one scheme. Scotland seems to be a small country to have three milk marketing schemes, and to have one scheme would spread the burden of carrying the seasonal milk over a wider area. If our friends in the North of Scotland feel at first sight that they would rather be left out of any such arrangement, I would ask them whether a good deal of money could not be saved if there was only one administration instead of three as at present. Anyhow, I hope that my right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary will consider that question.
I wish to add a word about beef. I am glad to know from the Minister of Agriculture that a marketing scheme is not to be imposed upon the cattle industry. I am also glad that, seeing that the levy is to be on foreign meat only and not a heavy one, my right hon. Friend has prevailed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a subsidy in addition, but I cannot help pointing out that the taxpayer under this arrangement is being relieved of £2,000,000 a year, because it is estimated that £3,000,000 will be gained from the levy and the present subsidy comes to something like £4,000,000. I am afraid that there is very great disappointment among farmers that the subsidy does not provide for a guaranteed price. It has been very strongly pressed upon Scottish Members here by livestock farmers that a guaranteed price is necessary. A guaranteed price was given for wheat, and beef means a great deal more to Scotland than wheat. Unless something miraculous occurs to raise the price to the farmer the price, even when the full subsidy comes into operation, is likely to be a good deal less than the cost of production.
I know that the Government want to put agriculture upon a sound basis. It is more than ever necessary in view of the dark clouds that have gathered over Europe. I would ask my right hon. and gallant Friend not to forget that livestock is the very basis of agriculture in Scotland, and that very great anxiety has been expressed to us in this House by Scottish livestock farmers at the condition of the industry. Is it not a necessary measure of national defence to make perfectly sure that a subsidy is given which will keep what is the greater and most important part of Scottish agriculture upon a paying foundation?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: I did not take part in the last Scottish Debate, but I enjoyed the new rule in regard to 15 minutes' speeches. I realise that it is difficult to change over from a House which exhausts itself by long speeches, but we hope that, through the education which the House will receive from Scottish Members, we shall be able to establish a system under which speakers will avoid repetition. I do not intend to break the new self-imposed rule.

Duchess of ATHOLL: May I say that I had no idea that any such rule had been suggested for this Debate?

Mr. HARDIE: I should like to deal with a number of subjects. In the first place, I have often wondered why the Department of Agriculture have not taken more practical interest in the question of bracken. I have not seen any reference in any Departmental report to the work of Sir Albert Howard, of the Ministry of Agriculture, who was sent out to India. He is perhaps the greatest expert in plant life that we have. In India he has done very valuable work on the subject of plant manure. He has established a system under which rubbish is treated in order to create a humus. The system has been most successful, and hon. Members would be interested to see photographs of huge areas in India where refuse is taken and reduced to a humus which is more than equal to the best animal manure. If I could impress upon any representative of the Scottish Office the importance of making bracken into humus I should be very glad.
I experimented in the production of humus, and a farmer offered £2 a ton when the process had been completed and the fungi had done their work. I laid down two experimental plots covering 28 feet by 15 feet last October, and after three months we were ready to develop the humus, but a cloudburst came and washed the two plots into the river. That spoiled the experiment. Why does not the Scottish Agriculture Department do something practical on these lines and have an experiment made? The work of Sir Albert Howard has been published and he is now resident in London. I am certain that he would be happy to give any information on what has happened in India and what is being done in this country.
My next point is in regard to grass, and more particularly the poisoning that is taking place. I remember that on the farm on which I used to work as a boy whenever we had a break through in any of the hedges and the animals got into the clover, a similar condition obtained to that which is now described as grass poisoning. Has the Department of Agriculture on its research side made investigation into the question of sulphate of ammonia which is used for making grass grow? Have they ascertained

where the sulphate of ammonia comes from and when it was applied? That is a most important matter for research. If you get nice, clean sulphate of ammonia you are all right, but if you get inferior sulphate and you have spots in the ground which become intensely acid and then a short distance away it is alkaline, it is not difficult to imagine what takes place in the combination. I hope the Department will go into this matter, having regard to its great importance to agriculture.
Now I come to Lanarkshire. The right hon. Gentleman knows what a wonderful area that is for fruit and how tomato growing under glass has developed. There are still huge possibilities in that field. Here is an industrial area with perhaps the biggest supply of waste heat. We have there large works which are shut down at night but which have to bank their fires. If we could use that heat and transfer it to places which are cultivating foodstuffs we could grow all the year round the finest vegetables, great quantities of which we import from other countries, especially in the early spring. We could have new potatoes at Christmas. These things are possible in an industrial area such as I have described, and they could be done very cheaply. The advantages that could be derived from the use of this waste heat are almost incalculable. We could give to the man who is attempting to grow things under glass conditions which would be very beneficial. At the present time such a man has to use an alarm clock and get up in the night in order to keep his fires going and to maintain an even temperature. What is needed is a steady temperature and what you cannot do by the use of coal fires you can do by means of gas. I hope that in the next report we shall have something practical on this subject.
Why is it that the Scottish Department of Agriculture have not yet done anything electrically? Why have they not taken steps to treat the land by electricity, as is done in Scandinavia, the effects of which I saw when I visited that country? We have our electrical plants and we know that works close down at night. Unless an electrical generating plant is kept at its full load it does not pay to run it. If steps were taken to utilise electricity in agriculture


we could in dull days provide artificial sunlight for the production of products under glass, and the results would be very profitable. Why do not the Government try to do something in this direction? The Tory party are said to have all the great brains and ideas. Why have none of these things been done? Because a practical man is not at the head of affairs.
I come to the question of land drainage. Let me take the case of a farm 750 feet above sea level, 17 miles from the city of Glasgow. That farm is properly drained. The result is that the water goes to the man whose farm is situated on a lower level and who cannot afford to drain. It means that the farmer on the upper level is draining off his water on to the land of the other man who has not the money to spend on drainage. There should be a law which says that those owning ground should provide a main artery into which the farmer could drain his land. When I speak to a farmer with regard to improvements that might be made, I find him the last man to listen to anything that is new. I have been with farmers for the purpose of testing their land and discovering whether or not it is acid, and I know from experience what are the results. I should like to see another report on liming. I think the Department are failing in their duty in not seeing to it where the farmer obtains his lime. There is a tremendous difference in what is called lime. We have nothing to standardise lime. One sees farmers going to the gas works and obtaining supplies of the lime which has purified the gas, and then they spread that lime on their land. What happens? I hope that we shall be given some technical information on this matter in the report next year. The Department ought to be able to tell the farmer whether he is right or wrong in using that sort of lime. It may be right in one place but wrong in 10 places to put that kind of lime on the land. Then there is the question of sand. Where there is the presence of sand you get new conditions and you have to make scientific calculations as to what the growth is likely to be on such ground.
I hope that the Department will act less on hearsay and more upon facts. We have received from the North of

Scotland extracts from newspapers calling attention to the deaths of horses from grass poisoning. Accompanying these extracts are letters from various people. There is a letter from one man who states that previous to aviation there was no grass disease. This individual, named Baines, from Glamis, says that there was nothing wrong before the visitation of aeroplanes. He seems to have the idea in his head that the aeroplane is dropping something that spreads all through an area in the form of grass poison. If the Department of Agriculture did its duty letters of that kind would not appear uncontradicted. It is the duty of the Department of Agriculture to take up these things which appear in the Press, and correct them, otherwise many farmers when they see an aeroplane will think that a few of their horses will die. I hope the Department will take note of the various matters that I have raised, and that we shall have some reference to them in the next report.

5.58 p.m.

Sir R. W. SMITH: I am sure the House and also Scottish farmers will be very much interested in the practical speech to which we have just listened. It is very interesting to have a speech from the other side telling farmers what they ought to do. Might I suggest to the hon. Member that he would be conferring upon the agricultural industry a very great favour if he would take a farm and apply his principles and prove to the farmers of Scotland that they are all wrong and he is right? I venture to suggest that a good many farmers are much more practical farmers than he is.

Mr. HARDIE: I do not profess to be a practical farmer. What I have said has a scientific bearing upon agriculture, and if the hon. Member cares to take me up on that point I will meet him anywhere and beat the life out of him.

Sir R. W. SMITH: What I am suggesting is that the hon. Member should put theories into practice and show the farmers exactly what they ought to do. Let him prove to them that they are wrong, and then I am sure they will be deeply grateful to him and will adopt his plan. When we look at the report of the Department of Agriculture we


cannot help being worried about the condition of the agricultural industry. The report says:
The prices realised for agricultural produce show on the whole little if any improvement on those ruling in 1934.
If one takes that statement and the figures of the wages now paid in the industry as compared with 1925, one can see that the position of the agricultural industry is far from satisfactory. The Board of Agriculture is the body which is responsible for the well-being of the industry, and if I venture to make one or two criticisms and put forward some suggestions it is only with a desire to improve agriculture in Scotland.
Generally when I take part in these Debates it is on the question of oats or beef in the North-East. The Under-Secretary of State in his opening remarks made the best possible case for the Department, and while we realise that in a large part of Scotland farmers have benefited by the Wheat Act, by the Beet Sugar Act and by many of the other subsidies given by the Government, yet the whole point is that the North-East has not been able to secure these benefits owing to climatic conditions. The Under-Secretary of State referred to the livestock industry, and I was glad to hear that this is being taken up by the Department. I raised the matter some time ago. In England breeders of heavy horses are rather more fortunate than those in Scotland. There was in 1932 a cut which has been restored in England, but which we have not got in Scotland. Therefore it is all the more necessary that this small benefit should be restored to the industry.
Let me say one word on the question of the consumption of milk. The Under-Secretary has told us what the Government are doing in supplying milk to school children. I do not know whether there is any truth in the statement, but I am told that parents, owing to the fact that their children are being given free milk in schools, are not giving them so much for breakfast. If that is so it is a very serious matter and wants watching; that is if it is true that parents are neglecting their duty to provide the necessary nourishment for their children because they know they are getting it in school. The provision of a supply of pure milk is of great benefit to the health

of the population and is also of importance to the agricultural industry. But when we talk about doing the best for the agricultural industry we shall have to go much further than merely supplying milk to school children. We must get it into the homes of our people.
My opinion is that the reason why milk is not used more in the homes of the people is that in the past the milk sold to the housewife in the towns has not been produced under pure conditions; it has been dirty milk, and did not keep and, therefore, the housewife, when she found that it turned sour by the next morning, did not purchase it. I am, therefore, glad indeed to hear from the Under-Secretary of State that the provision of pure milk has advanced, and I trust that the Department will do all it can to see that the people get a pure article. If we can get a pure article, which will keep, the housewife will return to the purchase of milk rather than continue to buy tinned milk. As regards the nutritive value of milk, if we are going to experiment in a scientific way we ought to give milk to a certain number of children and treat a similar number of other children with other forms of food, so as to see how they react to the different diet. To take a certain number of children and give them milk and another lot of children who do not get milk is not a sound way of dealing with the matter.
With regard to the question of crofters and land settlement, I am not opposed to land settlement, but I do not think it is right to look on land settlement as an agricultural problem. It is much more a matter of health or of husbandry. But that is what we are doing. We are putting men on to the land in order to get them out of the towns. Land settlement is not an agricultural question. When we are told that so many thousands of pounds are being spent for the benefit of agriculture I think it should be realised that many thousands of pounds are not being spent for the benefit of agriculture but largely for the benefit of those who are unemployed, who are taken out of the towns and put on to the land. The suggestion that all this money is being spent for the benefit of agriculture is not quite a fair criticism.
I notice that there is a large increase in the salaries of the Department of


Agriculture, an increase of over £14,000. I should like to know why this is necessary. There is a large increase in the number of persons who are paid, from 237 in 1935 to 292 in 1936. That naturally means that some extra work is being done. I want to stress this point on the Government. What we want at the present time is that the Department shall deal with economic statistics. We ought to get further statistics with regard to the economic position of the industry in Scotland, and also other statistics and facts. I notice that the analysis of the agricultural statistics and the classification of farms by type has been resumed. The Department in their report say:
This is to form eventually the basis for the selection of farms to provide accounting data, and should also throw light on the general conditions prevailing over a wide area or even over the whole country.
I would appeal to the Under-Secretary to hurry up with this analysis. We want the data to show the general conditions prevailing in the agricultural industry. We want to know the cost of the production of oats and of beef. It would be of enormous advantage if we had these figures when discussing what ought to be done for the industry. This is a work which the Department should undertake at once. I should also like the Scottish Advisory Council to take up this question and see what they can suggest. The council was set up for this special purpose. May I ask whether the Department has received any report from the council with regard to the cereal situation in Scotland? I make a special appeal for these statistics so that we shall know the general position in Scotland. I suggest that the country should be divided into areas, which should be dealt with separately, because there are certain areas, such as the north-east, which may be called very Special Areas. If matters go on as they are at the present time we shall have to ask that the north-east area shall be put under the Congested District Board so that we shall get further assistance. I do not ask for that now, but I do think it is necessary to divide the country into areas so that the general position of Scotland can be thoroughly examined.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. J. BROWN: I was glad indeed to hear the Under-Secretary speak of the

great progress that has been made during the last two years. It may not seem great progress in the eyes of many hon. Members, but relatively it is great progress compared with what has taken place in recent years. We welcome everything that is being done to place men on the land in smallholdings and to give them work to do. In Ayrshire we have smallholders who make a profit. Within a mile of where I am living there are eight or ten who are able to bring milk to the village, and who can keep their sons there. Many of these men were miners, but they have been able to turn their hand to a smallholding and have made a profit out of it. It has given an impetus to the smallholdings movement in the area.
Amid all the improvements, and the progress that has been made, I want to stress the question of land drainage. When so much assistance has been given to agriculture in every direction, I cannot understand why it should to a great extent—almost to vanishing point—have been taken away in the case of land drainage. I am not now talking about the rivers, because if a few thousand pounds were spent there we should be able to bring about an immense increase in the acreage under cultivation, and we should be doing very well both for Dumfriesshire and Ayrshire.

Mr. McKIE: What about Galloway?

Mr. BROWN: Galloway does not come in.

Mr. McKIE: The Nith borders it.

Mr. BROWN: Yes, it borders it. It would not have taken a great deal of money to do that, but by some mischance or other—I was out of the House at the time—it fell through and was not done. The farmers have been helped in almost every direction, but not in respect to land drainage. I believe I am right in saying that in 1919 a 50 per cent. grant was given to the farmers for land drainage, but in 1928 that grant was reduced to one-third, and almost immediately afterwards to one-quarter. At the present time the farmers cannot—or say they cannot—afford the expense of drainage. While I am a convinced Free Trader, I do not see why, when so much money has been given to the beetroot growers, or to those who attempt to grow


beetroot, and to other sections of agriculture—although very little good has come to the agricultural worker—a little more should not be given in order to get land properly drained. My hon. Friend the Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) suggested that sour land helped to bring about grazing sickness. I am sure the Secretary of State knows, as many other hon. Members know, that in many parts of Scotland there is land sour for want of drainage. Is it not possible that lack of land drainage is responsible for a good deal of grazing sickness? I think there might be something in that statement. Although I have lived in an agricultural district all my life, I know very little about practical farming; a little practical work with a spade in the garden is the extent of my knowledge. But I would ask hon. Members not to think that I do not represent agricultural workers, for the majority of my constituents are agricultural workers, and I am very anxious that something should be done for them.
If there were more land drainage we should have more scope for producing food. I think the Government and many others, including some hon. Members on this side, are a little afraid that if war should come, there would very quickly be a famine in this country. Why not encourage the cultivation of more land? Why not reclaim many areas that could easily be reclaimed, seeing that they have become derelict only during the last 20 or 25 years? Why not give suitable assistance for drainage in order that we may have more than three months' food supply at our disposal if, unhappily, war comes upon us? We do not want war, but in the state of Europe and the world to-day we should always be prepared for war. Here we have one method which would be far better than spending millions on destroying life; it would help to maintain life if unhappily war came.
Moreover, land drainage would give a good deal of work. I do not say that it would give a great amount of work when compared with the vast needs of the country at the present time for more employment; but it would mean the employment of many tile-makers, many drainers and even a good number of miners. I am informed that 40 tile-makers make as many tiles in a day as will keep some 227 drainers going, and I

also understand that something like 27 man-shifts a day would be required in the mines for the necessary coal to be produced. Those figures are infinitesimal when set against the huge figures of unemployment, but nevertheless the employment would be worth having. In any case, why should we have in Scotland waterlogged land that could easily be converted into something that would be worth looking at? I am old enough to remember when every farm in the South-West of Scotland had its field of wheat, and I am even old enough to remember the time when everybody had a little piece of flax. That has now disappeared.
If the Government gave the assistance necessary for this drainage, I am certain we could not only get more land for the production of food, but make the land worth looking at—make it, so to speak, blossom like the rose. After all, a nice landscape is worth having, even at a little expense. If the Government would give assistance I am sure that much could be done by the farmers which would give work to others, and incidentally make Scotland a much better country from the agricultural point of view than it is at the present time. I trust the Government will take my remarks into account. I hope they will reintroduce the 50 per cent. of assistance which was given in 1919, and I believe we would be satisfied with that. At any rate, I commend that suggestion to the Lord Advocate and the Under-Secretary of State, and I hope that, so far as they are concerned, they will try to give some assistance in order to get more land drainage, to the benefit of the country and the people as a whole.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. McKIE: I am very glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. James Brown), the former Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland, whose constituency borders my own. I listened with very great interest to every word of his comprehensive speech. Before coming to the points I wish specially to raise, I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his remarks about land drainage. Many of us who hold the Protectionist point of view think that land drainage is sometimes put forward in the Debates in this House and outside as a means of attempting to avoid the real


issue in agricultural politics and economics, but I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that very much more might me done in regard to land drainage. I hope that as a result of the several pleas that have been made in the course of the Debate this afternoon, the Scottish Office will think very seriously on this matter and see whether something can be done. If I may introduce a personal note, I should be very glad if some assistance were given, and would at once undertake a land drainage scheme in a small way.
There is one other point I would like to make with regard to something which was said earlier in the Debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen and Kincardine (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey) congratulated the Under-Secretary on his speech, and said that he hoped we would hear very little more about the necessity of combining England and Scotland under one agricultural Department. I am sure that the speeches this afternoon, all calling attention to various aspects of Scottish agriculture, will confirm His Majesty's Government in the attitude they have taken up on this important matter. We have heard a good deal about bracken, and I would like to back up the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) about not penalising those who are unable to afford the machinery which is shortly to be available—if it is not already available—for keeping down what is becoming a very heavy scourge in many parts of Scotland. It is a matter we ought to have faced already, and we shall have to do all in our power in the next few years to see that no more ground is taken out of cultivation because of bracken.
The main thing about which I rose to speak is the vexed question which has been alluded to several times in the Debate, although not as much as I would have liked. The Under-Secretary, in his opening remarks, referred to the crux of the whole agricultural position both in England and in Scotland, namely, the vexed question of beef production and what we are going to do about it. I wish the right hon. and gallant Gentleman could have seen his way to be a little more specific, but I was very glad indeed to hear what I thought to be a remark of great promise in his speech, when he said that the long-term policy would be

debated very early in the Autumn Session. I had been under the impression—I hope the unfortunate and erroneous impression—that we had already been made aware of the proposals with regard to the long-term policy for beef. I am full of hope this afternoon that now, no doubt arising from the repeated complaints that have been made in recent agricultural Debates, the Government are reconsidering the position, and that they are going to offer us in the autumn a very much more comprehensive and realistic policy in this matter.
The other day, in discussing the position of cattle in the agricultural body politic, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who I am sorry is not in his place to-day, threw out a novel suggestion when he said, in reply to something which had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), that it was necessary, before one entered the arena of agricultural matters, to engage in some form of manual labour in agriculture, and he suggested handling the plough, cocking hay, pulling turnips and cleaning byres. I have never handled a plough, but I have helped with the hay and pulled turnips, and on more than one occasion I have cleaned a byre. I mention that only because I was very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have insisted that some form of practical manual labour was necessary before one could venture to speak on such a controversial subject as the policy we are to follow with regard to beef. However, I have great hopes, in view of the fact that the Under-Secretary said that proposals would be introduced in the House in the early part of the Autumn Session.

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I did not say the early part of the Session, but during the Session.

Mr. McKIE: I have no wish to tie my right hon. and gallant Friend down to the early weeks of the Session, but we will say before Christmas, or as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen has often raised the question of oats, but I think he will agree with me, having perused, as he often has, the figures regarding the place of the various branches of agriculture in Scottish production, that we must tackle the big things first, and the beef-producing branch of the agricultural industry


accounts for the major part of Scottish agriculture. I hope, as the weeks and months go by, if the proposals of the Government are not adequate, we shall continually impress on Ministers the fact that they will have to be up and doing for this section of the industry.
Several hon. Members above the Gangway and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) have alluded to the wages paid in the industry. We passed through all its stages during the present Session, an unemployment insurance Measure for the agricultural labourer. That was practically an agreed Measure. Then we had the recent report of the Caithness Commission. I do not know what is likely to be the outcome of the findings of that commission as regards legislation, but I suppose we shall have to wait and see what the Government propose to do in the autumn, or sometime in the next Session. Do not let hon. Members, either those who sit above the Gangway or those who occupy the Liberal Benches, think, however, that they can escape from facing the realities of the situation in agriculture by raising questions of that kind.
The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) quoted figures to show the decline in wages in the last five years. We were all appalled and aghast at the figures which the hon. Member gave, but surely they show the necessity of doing something now to ensure that agriculture shall occupy its proper place. Surely they show the needs of action, by legislation and administration, to ensure that agriculture shall be put into a state of efficiency. Otherwise, the demand for labour in agriculture is bound to shrink, and it is no good attempting to fix wages unless you are sure that the industry is in a state of efficiency and able to employ more and more men, and women too, for that matter. I was rather surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire state that he was a convinced Free Trader. I think those were his words. But I suppose that he is only a convinced Free Trader for the duration of the present Government and that if a Socialist Government were not only in office, but in power, and proceeded to nationalise or socialise all our basic industries, he would then be prepared to consider protection and assistance for

those industries. However, I was glad to hear what the Under-Secretary had to say as regards the Government's policy and I hope that the Lord Advocate later in the Debate will be able to throw a little more light upon this and other dark subjects.
The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said the other day that the Tory party were digging themselves into the agricultural constituencies. The Minister of Agriculture taking up that point said he was pressed on one side to do more for agriculture and on the other side was told that he had done too much. He argued from that state of things, that the Government's policy must be right because it steered a middle and even course between the two extremes. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Burslem is not at present in his place, and I wish he would go down to Scotland and have a talk with some of our agriculturists and ask them what they think of what the Government have done, particularly with regard to the livestock branch of the industry. I assure him that he will find them in a very discontented frame of mind. Only last Saturday I heard of a lifelong Conservative in Scotland whose father and whose grandfather were both highly respected Members of this House, and who had decided to sever his official connection with the Conservative party owing to their failure to keep their promises with regard to restoring agriculture to its rightful place in our national economy.
We have waited now nearly five years for the Government to produce a livestock policy and it is not to be wondered at that agriculturists who hoped for so much from a National Government should be despairing—as they are to-day. They are despairing, one might say, not only of the Government but of the Parliamentary machine. Many of them feel that Hitler or Mussolini would have done more in a month, especially those who have been in Italy and have seen for themselves what Mussolini accomplished for agriculture in his country within a few years of taking control of its affairs. I am not making any plea for methods of dictatorship. I agree that if such methods were applied we should probably suffer many very uncomfortable things, even though agriculture might be put right. I only mention that to show the state of feeling in the industry and in


the hope that it will help the Government to view this question in a realist light and to produce a more practical policy on beef production than they have seen fit hitherto to offer to the House. I shall await with interest what the Lord Advocate has to say on this pressing matter.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Much as I should like to follow the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) into some of the wider issues which he raised, I must refrain from doing so, in view of the self-denying ordinance which hon. Members have imposed on themselves as regards length of speeches. I am conscious of a certain feeling of temerity in intervening at all in the Debate, because in these days I gather it is regarded as almost indecent, even for a Member representing an agricultural constituency, to speak on agricultural topics, and presumably it is much worse for a representative of an urban constituency to charge into such a discussion. Nevertheless, I would like to deal with a matter which affects my constituency and for once in a way I find myself closely in sympathy with the views of the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) who raised the question of the position of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board.
I think we ought to hear, before this Debate closes, a little more about the situation created by the recent decision of the House of Lords. That decision is to the effect that producer-retailers are not liable to pay money to the board for the purpose of averaging out the price. Although that decision may have been a shock to the Secretary of State and to the board, it cannot have come altogether as a surprise. As long ago as March, 1934, the Eastern Milk Producers' Federation put on record their view that the use of money paid by the producer-retailers for this purpose was not only an injustice in itself, but was outside the terms of the scheme. Indeed, I think they put forward that view at an even earlier date and they certainly recorded it in March, 1934, so that the decision of the House of Lords does not come as a bolt from the blue. It simply confirms the view taken all along by the federation and by producers generally in the East of Scotland. It would be interesting if the Lord Advocate when he replied

were to give us an authoritative statement on the legal position.
I suppose the great majority of producer-retailers have paid the levy, either as a cow levy or in the ordinary form, and, of course, those who have not paid willingly or have decided not to pay, have been subject to the poinding sales to which reference was made by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth. What is to be the position of those from whom money has already been recovered? It is a general doctrine—and I think it is the same in Scotland as in England, though I speak with some diffidence on that point—that money paid under a mistake of law is not recoverable. There are, however, various exceptions to that rule and I should be grateful for the Lord Advocate's opinion as to whether that rule applies to the money paid to the board by the producer-retailers.
I submit that this is not merely a matter for the Board, and I was a little surprised at an answer given on this subject by the Secretary of State for Scotland last week. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), in a Supplementary Question, asked:
Will the right hon. Gentleman see that restitution is made to those who have had sums wrongfully taken from them?
The Secretary of State replied:
That is a matter which rests with the Board and not with the Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1936; col. 445, Vol. 315.]
I realise that that was only an answer to a Supplementary Question, and I hope it will be made clear that this question is regarded, not merely as a matter for the Milk Board, but as a matter for the Government. When an injustice has been done, when some thousands of people have been wrongfully deprived of these sums over a considerable period, that is not something to be left to the Milk Marketing Board. Apart from the question of strict legal liability and of whether or not those who have paid will be able to recover their money by some sort of legal process, two questions remain which I hope will be answered before Friday. Certainly I hope answers will be given to them in the near future so that the people in the East of Scotland may know where they stand. The first question is:


Will restitution be made to those who have paid their levy? The second question is: If so, from what source is it to be paid? I have not tried to create unnecessary difficulties, but the Government must realise that this is a matter of the greatest concern to those affected and that they ought to know their position as soon as possible. I do not think anybody would dispute the fact that they are people who, for the most part, in the early days of the scheme received very harsh treatment at the hands of the Board.
The Noble Lady the Member for West Perth represents, I think, a consensus of opinion in the East of Scotland when she says that the Scottish milk scheme on its present basis cannot continue. The basis of nearly all the milk marketing schemes in different parts of the country is that, to a certain extent, the level producers subsidise the seasonal producers. That may be all right for an English scheme in which the level producers are in a majority. But where you have a situation such as has existed in Scotland for the last three years, in which a minority has to carry a majority on its back, you have an impossible state of things.
I would also like to ask when may we expect the report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission. The Commission has now been sitting for a long time, and when we raise questions as to the reform of the Scottish milk scheme we are told to wait for its report. That report is already overdue, and we should be told whether we may expect it before Parliament reassembles in October.
There is one other matter, again arising out of the operations of the Milk Board, which I want to mention. One of the great difficulties in the operation of the milk scheme in Scotland has been the question of discount or dividend. In this matter we are governed by the terms of the contract which is put out by the board, and I would like to remind the House of the actual terms of Clause 17, Sub-section (4) of the contract, which reads:
For the purpose of this Clause, any discount, dividend, rebate, gift, or similar inducement, promised or made to or for the benefit of a customer shall be deemed to be a reduction in price. Provided always that any registered co-operative society may return dividends to their members on retail

sales of milk to them for liquid consumption. The Scottish Co-operative Wholesale Society may pay dividends on milk sales to registered co-operative societies who are members of the Scottish branch of the Whole sale Co-operative Society. Provided also"—
and these are the words to which I want particularly to call attention—
that the Board may, on the application of distributors in any county or city, permit distributors in such county or city to pay dividends, provided that the Board is satisfied that it is the general desire of such distributors that such permission be granted.
That is the general arrangement that has been made. I have no doubt the board wish to give equality of treatment as between co-operative societies on the one side and the ordinary distributors on the other, and though I am not speaking in any way as an enemy of the co-operative societies—I think they themselves would agree that you must try to hold the scales evenly, particularly in this matter of price reduction—I want to draw the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Stephens, who is a producer-retailer at Inverurie. Mr. Stephens found that the co-operative society which was competing with him in his district was giving a discount amounting to about a seventh of the total price. He determined that he would give a similar discount, so he proceeded to provide his customers with one week's free milk in seven. Every seventh week they had free milk. For that he was brought before the court by the board and fined £5. He then proceeded to give his customers one free day in seven, and he was again brought up and this time fined £10. He then discussed the matter with the board, and eventually, as an act of grace, they allowed him to give a quarterly dividend, because, they said, that was the form in which the dividend was given by the local co-operative society. But it is not the same thing for a small shopkeeper as it is for a large society. If he were to give quarterly dividends it would mean that he would have to keep books for his customers, to issue stamps, and, to employ additional labour in order to keep the books and calculate the discount—all unnecessary work and expense, making a very heavy burden on a man in a small way of business.
If the aim is simply to hold the scales evenly between all sides, as long as you


have a discount given on the one side approximately equivalent to the dividend given on the other, I cannot understand why the small tradesman should be harried in this way and why he should not be allowed to give his discount in the way best suited to himself and most profitable to his own business. I think there is this sense of grievance, particularly among the small retailers and producer-retailers, which has been very largely created by incidents of the kind which I have just described. I am one of those who hope that the Scottish Milk Board in its present form will shortly cease to exist. Certainly it will never be a very popular body in Scotland as long as it conducts its affairs in this manner and gives unnecessary pinpricks and irritation to people who are carrying on their business in a perfectly law-abiding fashion.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. WESTWOOD: When the House realises the multitude of subjects covered by this Vote, it can appreciate to the full the able and effective way in which the Under-Secretary of State condensed his remarks even to a half hour. I want to concentrate, in the limited time at my disposal, mainly on the report of the Committee on Farm Workers in Scotland, which is now available for Members of this House. During the last 12 months many reports have been submitted to this House, through the Secretary of State for Scotland, from Departmental committees which he has set up. The work of some of these committees has extended over at least three years; another that I know of has taken at least 18 months; and I think this particular committee, the Caithness Committee, is entitled to be complimented on the speed with which it has submitted its report and also on the fact that, despite the varying interests represented, it has been able to submit for the consideration of the Secretary of State and this House a unanimous report.
There are one or two points in this report that are of interest, particularly in view of recent Debates in this House. On page 9 of this report we find a reference to child labour, and I think it is all to the credit of Scottish agriculture that they have been able to adjust themselves, in carrying on this great industry, to what is claimed to be a scarcity of child labour in the rural districts. It is

of the greatest interest to those concerned in child welfare and also in agriculture that we find in this report this statement:
In the greater part of Scotland the industry has successfully accommodated itself to its inability to secure child labour, and we see no reason why the practice of employing children on work of this nature should not be entirely abolished throughout the country.
I wish the Noble Lady the Member for West Perth (Duchess of Atholl) had been in her place to hear that passage quoted. I think it is a very important statement to come from this impartial committee, and it proves that certain areas in Scotland have adjusted themselves, in dealing with the problem of agriculture, to that scarcity of child labour.
There is one other point in this report to which I want specially to refer, and that is the reference to housing conditions. I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) has already pointed out that in many of our rural districts, and in the Highlands and Islands, despite the progress that has been made, some of the housing conditions are still abominable, deplorable, and altogether indefensible. Special reference is made on page 17 of the report, not so much to the housing conditions as to the tied-house system, which again, I submit, is altogether indefensible in its association with agriculture. I believe it is possible, without any new legislation, but by administration, to deal, not at one stroke of the pen or in one day or one month, with this problem, because in paragraph 59 of this report it specially refers to the need for what I would call slow progress in dealing with this problem. It states on page 18:
We are satisfied that under the tied-house system it is not possible for the farm worker to achieve any real independence, but whatever form any modification of the system may take, it is obvious that the process must be a gradual one.
I want to see the Department starting on that gradual process of abolishing the tied-house system so far as the agricultural worker is concerned. I understand that there is still on the Statute Book the Housing (Rural Workers) (No. 2) (Scotland) Act, which, if operated, would enable the Department to build houses in the rural districts of Scotland to let at rents of not more than 3s. 6d. per week, including rates. I understand


that very limited advantage was taken of that particular Act and that in the name of economy the working of the Act was actually suspended from 1932 onwards. I want to ask the Lord Advocate, when he replies, whether the Department have any intention of trying to work that Act now, so as to give us in the rural districts housing conditions which will make it possible to keep our people on the land, instead of having them emigrate into urban areas, not to the good of the urban areas and certainly to the disadvantage of the rural areas in Scotland. I therefore ask for a definite reply from the Lord Advocate as to whether they intend, now that the financial stringency is past, to operate the Housing (Rural Workers) (No. 2) (Scotland) Act?
On page 35 of that report special reference is made to the need for organisation on the part of both employers and employés, so as to enable negotiations to take place more easily between these two parties so far as wages are concerned. Paragraph 115 reads:
Finally, there is one other matter of some importance that is worthy of mention. In the course of our enquiry we have accepted the evidence of the Scottish Farm Servants' Union.
The membership of this organisation is about 15 per cent. and of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland 25 per cent., and I want to suggest to the Under-Secretary of State that the Department might use their influence to bring about better organisation on the part of the Scottish farmer and equally so far as the agricultural workers themselves are concerned. That is an administrative problem, and it is far easier to settle wage problems between the representatives of well-organised bodies of both employers and employés than to deal with wages in a haphazard way, as happens to-day in connection with Scottish agriculture.
The Under-Secretary of State, in introducing this Vote, made several references to the work of the Department, but he only briefly touched on the question of the depredations done by deer. This was also referred to, I think, by the right hon. Member for Caithness. Surely the Department should have been doing something more in connection with this problem than the report that is in

our hands indicates. There is a very short paragraph on page 9 of the Department's report dealing with depredations by deer:
Reference was made in the report of 1934 to conferences with a joint committee representative of landowners and farmers with a view to framing proposals for legislation. … As there was no immediate prospect of legislation, no further conferences were held in 1935.
Surely the problem of the depredations done by deer, particularly in connection with many of our smallholdings in Scotland, is something that ought to have called for conferences during 1935. Surely something more should be done than is conveyed in this particular report. I have heard of men being practically cleared off the holdings by the hordes of deer which have come down from the Highlands. That means a loss of livelihood as far as these smallholders are concerned. The Department have not been doing all that they might have done in dealing with this problem.
We were told by the Under-Secretary that there was a certain benefit as a result of having these additional assistants dealing with horticulture. I am going to submit that Scottish beef, as far as quality is concerned, can hold its own with any in the world. I agree that there is room for improvement. He referred to animal diseases, and said that there was a need for the strengthening of the staff for dealing with animal diseases research. Not only is there need for that, but there is need for a closer co-ordination in connection with our educational efforts re the agricultural industry in Scotland. I have only a limited time to deal with this aspect of the industry, but for 10 to 13 years I was chairman of an Agricultural Educational Advisory Committee in Scotland, appointed there with the unanimous votes of the farmers and the general representatives dealing with this problem, and it taught me some lessons about the need of the co-ordination of our educational facilities.
In recent developments in agriculture in Great Britain during the period since the War the actual conditions of agriculture north of the Tweed have not shown the decided advance that has been shown elsewhere in Britain, particularly in the South of England. Almost every county in England has its agricultural college. We in Scotland are limited to three. They


are doing great work. Scotland has magnificent research institutes at Aberdeen, Glasgow, and Ayr, but there appears to be too great a gap between the farmer and the research institutes, a gap that must be bridged if we are to keep abreast of England, far less get ahead of her, which is the desire of representatives of Scotland irrespective of party. Information regarding the world's markets and consumers' requirements is lacking as far as Scotland is concerned. These defects appear to be due to inadequate county facilities, to the urgent need for a link between the farmers and the research institutes and to the lack of printed information available for farmers. I wish that I had time to develop the point which I specially wanted to make in connection with educational organisation as far as Scotland is concerned, but I am prepared like all good Scottish labour Members to try to keep to the arrangement for 15-minute speeches. It has been broken by only one side of the House, and I believe that that was due to misunderstanding, and that the hon. Lady did not hear the statement made by the Under-Secretary. There are other things I would like to have said, but I have agreed to the arrangement we made not to exceed 15 minutes.

7.5 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): I should like at the outset, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself, to express my gratification at the tone in which this Debate has been conducted, the recognition which has been shown from all parts of the House of the success which the Department of Agriculture has been able to achieve in so many directions and the helpful and constructive criticism which has been offered from many quarters with regard to many of the problems which they are engaged in solving. In the short time at my disposal I propose to select as many as possible of the topics which appear to have interested the House, in order to present the answers as well as I can to the questions which have been raised, and if I omit certain of the points which have been raised I hope hon. Members will realise the difficulties with which we have all been faced as a result of the self-denying ordinance which we have imposed on ourselves.
First, may I take the topic which was referred to by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) in replying on behalf of the Opposition and also by a number of other speakers—the question of land settlement, of the success of the Department's policy in that respect and of the true inferences to be drawn from the fact that to a large extent on paper the demand for smallholdings is still an unmet demand. The inferences which the hon. Member for Govan drew were, I think, not wholly justified by the figures on which he relied. His suggestion was that out of some 28,000 original applications, 12,000 had been withdrawn of which 5,000 were applications direct, and the inference which he sought to draw, very naturally, was that the problem was still, to a large extent, an unsolved problem. I am far from suggesting that there is not a great deal to be done, but I would like to suggest that in the first place the figures of the applications not yet dealt with, or not yet active, tend to present an unreal picture of the problem.
A great many of the applications are made by persons who attach conditions to their applications which it is very difficult, if not literally impossible, to meet—people who ask for smallholdings in particular areas or so situated in relation to other land that it is exceptionally difficult, or would be impossible to meet them. So that it must not be assumed from the mere sum total of applications that the problem is of the order and magnitude which the hon. Member suggested. In the second place, a large number of the applications are for enlargement of existing holdings, and must depend on the availability of land in connection with existing holdings. There is the further fact that as far as the industrial areas are concerned, in which the weight of the Department's effort has been concentrated, there is undoubtedly a growing scarcity of suitable land for meeting the purposes of the Department. I do not say that the land is not to be had, but it is not so easily had.

Mr. MACLEAN: I do not want to be considered as trying to mislead the House, but is it not the case that the actual number of applications by ex-service men for new holdings was 10,000?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am not challenging the hon. Member's figures,


and am far from suggesting that he was misleading the House. I was only suggesting that the circumstances which he put forward did not justify the inference which he drew. It was only a debating consideration I was putting forward and, I think, a just and fair one. The right hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) referred to the problem, and it is an element in the problem that the decline in prices has in recent years exercised a certain deterrent influence in the establishment of smallholdings in that part of the country to which he referred.
I pass from that to the closely associated question of the success of the work that has been done. A number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Kincardine (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey), have referred to this. I find that the figures with regard to what they call failures, meaning persons who have been settled on the land and have given it up as a bad job, show that the percentage of failures is gratifying small. I find that the largest percentage was 6 per cent. in 1928 and that since then the percentage has been of the order of 3, 2, 1 and even less than 1 per cent., indicating that a large measure of reasonable success is attained by those who are settled on the land.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this is the success of people who have been put in at a higher level of prices and had to go through the slump? Surely now that we are at a low level of prices the Department ought to be making a special effort?

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think that shows that they have made and are making such an effort, and are doing it with conspicuous success, and I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that while it is undoubtedly the case that a special effort has been made, and rightly made, in the Lowlands to alleviate the problems associated with that area, nevertheless it was never the intention to allow this special enterprise in the industrial belt to have the effect of weakening the effort of the Department in the Highlands. I have figures of the work and progress in the Highlands. Of the total of 3,500 pending applications from applicants who are classified as suitable, or

probably suitable, something like 1,000 come from the crofting counties and 500 from the Highlands. That shows that, viewing the problem as it stands to-day, only one-half of the demand comes from the area in which the right hon. Gentleman is specially interested.
May I turn, not because I have adequately dealt with this problem, but because I want to deal with another, to the topic to which considerable reference was made, namely, that of land drainage? One scheme for the River Annan is complete and a second scheme for the River Clyde associated with the portion near Hyndford Bridge has been submitted to the House, while the scheme for the River Kelvin is under some discussion and exploration by my right hon. Friend. These three schemes are notable contributions to the problem. When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan said that not nearly enough was being done under the powers of the Land Drainage Act, I would suggest to him that the difficulties in utilising more fully the powers of that Act are very frequently of an engineering and economic kind and not of an administrative or political kind. What I mean is this: The hon. Member referred to Garmouth at the mouth of the Spey with which I happen to be familiar, and the problem there really comes to a purely engineering one. The matter has been made the subject of an engineering report, which showed that it would cost far more to hold the river in check in times of spate than could ever be recovered from the land which would be protected from its flooding.

Mr. MACLEAN: I hope that the right hon and learned Gentleman did not misunderstand me. I was not merely raising the point with regard to the value of the land that could be protected from flooding, but the safety of property and of individuals who are being constantly flooded out.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I understand the position is that the aim of the local authority, in siting its new housing scheme, has been to accommodate the people who are liable to the discomfort and danger of flooding in a place where that danger does not exist rather than to adopt the alternative expense of trying to keep the river in its bed. In other districts, while the problem is not of the


same kind, it is correct to say that in most instances the economic difficulty of justifying expenditure, which would never be retrieved from any point of view, is so great that the application of the powers of the Land Drainage Act is much more difficult than the hon. Member imagined when he made the criticisms which he did. While that is so, I have indicated that a substantial step has been taken, particularly in the Kelvin scheme, with its £27,000 expenditure, towards carrying into operation the powers of the Act.
The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) raised a question with regard to the staff of the Department, drawing attention to the circumstance that the Estimates provided for an additional £14,000 under that head as compared with last year. The reason for the increase is to be found in a variety of circumstances. In the first place, there has taken place, not only in the Department of Health but in many other Departments of recent years, a staff reorganisation in the administrative grades, which has brought the staffing and salary scales of the Department into line with corresponding Departments in Whitehall and elsewhere. A considerable proportion of the additional expenditure is associated with that re-organisation, and a considerable proportion with normal increments in salary scales. In addition, it must be recalled that under the operation of the smallholdings schemes, the Department of Agriculture is now by far the largest landowner in Scotland, having properties extending to nearly 350,000 acres. Something like £6,000 of the increase is attributable to land settlement and factoral services and in paying surveyors and others who are employed in connection with the large estate which the Department owns. There is, in addition, the extra outdoor staff provided in connection with the attested herd scheme and under the Licensing of Bulls Act. Taking the matter altogether, if we ignore the increases which are of the automatic type, I think the House may rest assured that the staff and the remuneration are no more than are required for the adequate discharge of the many difficult duties which fall under the control of the Department.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the statement of the Lord Advocate correct that the Department of Agriculture in Scotland is the largest owner of land in Scotland? I always thought it was the Duke of Buccleuch.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think that my statement is accurate, and therefore the hon. Member is probably deprived of an argument for use on his platform. In reference to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Sir M. Barclay-Harvey) with regard to the volume of agricultural output in Scotland, and similar inquiries made by other hon. Members with regard to statistics, I am glad to be able to say that the publication which was formerly a 10-yearly publication and is now to be brought out every five years, will be brought down to the year 1935. I am not in a position to say how quickly it will be ready, but every effort will be made to expedite publication, because I agree that statistics of this kind are very valuable and should be in the hands of the public at the earliest possible date.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that the agricultural statistics are only up to 1934 at present? We are still without the figures for 1935, and is this not a long time to wait?

The LORD ADVOCATE: My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the desirability of having these statistics up-to-date, and every endeavour will be made to expedite their publication.
I should like to drop the other topics on which I intended to speak in order to devote a few words to the Ferrier decision in the House of Lords and to the milk situation. There is one misconception which underlay the arguments of certain hon. Members who addressed themselves to this topic. The effect of the recent decision in the House of Lords has not been to reveal any defect in the marketing scheme of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board. It has only been to reveal the fact that the Milk Marketing Board misinterpreted one phrase in that scheme. Accordingly, when the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) instances the cases of hardship which she stated had arisen in years gone by through the operation of the scheme, I should like to make it


plain that the recent judgment in the case of Ferrier had nothing whatever to do with these hardships, or with the controversy between the level producer and the seasonal producer, or with any other of the topics which have given rise to a great deal of controversy in the last three or four years.
All that has happened is that in carrying out their work under the scheme, which came into operation 2½ years ago, the Scottish Milk Marketing Board placed a certain interpretation upon a single phrase in their agreement. It is fair to them to point out that on the 20th July, 1934, a court of seven judges in the Court of Session decided by six to one that the Board's interpretation of this scheme was correct. Two years later, that is, about ten days ago, the House of Lords decided that the decision of the six judges in the Court of Session was wrong and that the Milk Marketing Board's interpretation was wrong. It is only right that the House should know that for two years the Board have been administering their scheme on an interpretation which had the approval of six judges of the Court of Session.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I quite recognise the force of what the Lord Advocate says, that the board has been collecting a levy on the strength of a judgment given several years ago which has now been reversed, but is he trying to suggest that the judgment of the House of Lords does not affect many of the sums that the producers have been paying?

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Noble Lady invites me, as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) invited me, to express a legal opinion in relation to this dispute. I am not bound nor entitled to express a legal opinion on that point, but out of courtesy to the House I will say in answer to the particular challenge of the hon. Member for Dundee that it would be a profound mistake for anyone to assume that because a decision is pronounced by the House of Lords in an action between A and B in circumstances which involve the reversal of a previous decision, on that account all action which has been taken in the past in good faith and in reliance upon a previous decision of the court can be undone. The point the Noble Lady must remember is

this: She is taking her stand upon an appeal to Caesar. She relies on a certain construction of the scheme now affirmed to be correct by the House of Lords. When you appeal to Caesar to Caesar you go, and the answer of Caesar to those who claim that the history of the last two years should be re-written would be, as the hon. Member for Dundee rightly anticipated, that in the great majority of cases the past cannot be undone, and the money cannot be recovered.
Hon. Members will recall what was said on this very point by the Financial Secretary to-day in answer to a question relating to a reclaim of Stamp Duty. Accordingly I would ask hon. Members to bear in view that so far as the purely legal side is concerned it may well be that a comparatively small amount of the levies which have been paid in the past by the category producers is legally recoverable. The importance of that is that it would not be within the power of the Milk Marketing Board to attempt to recover moneys from ordinary producers in order to give effect to the decision, all of which points to the desirability of awaiting the decision of the Scottish Milk Marketing Board, and I understand that they are—

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 6, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order).

As amended, considered.

7.30 p.m.

Sir JOHN MELLOR: I beg to move, to leave out Part IV.
Although at first sight this question may appear to be one which affects only my constituents in the Tamworth Division of Warwickshire, none the less it is capable of very extended application, and is one which may well concern the country as a whole in the future. I feel that the issue is really this: If Parliament provides powers for a specific purpose is it right that a corporation should, by means of a private Bill, seek to acquire different powers for the same purpose?


Birmingham is in process of establishing an airport in Warwickshire. A very small portion of the airport is within the city bounds. The scheme is roughly this: In the centre will be the aerodromes, surrounded by two zones, each zone being about 500 yards in width. The scheme is that those two zones shall form what is called a protected area, in which the height of obstructions shall be restricted in order to secure safety for aeroplanes descending and rising. The proposed restrictions are these: In the inner zone nothing is to be raised to a greater altitude than will subtend an angle of three degrees at the nearest point of the aerodrome. In the outer zone nothing is to be raised above a height of 75 feet from the base of the aerodrome. As the aerodrome is surrounded at some points by rising ground there are places where probably nothing could be built at all.
I wish to make it clear that from a technical point of view I have no criticism whatever to offer on these proposals, and am quite prepared to accept the view that they are necessary and reasonable. My complaint against Part IV, which contains these proposals, is made from the business point of view, and I shall endeavour to indicate that Part IV is unnecessary. Under the Air Navigation Bill, the Government's own Bill, which we have reason to expect will receive the Royal Assent before the end of this week, it will be quite possible for the Birmingham Corporation to do all those things without the assistance of Part IV. Indeed, already the Birmingham Corporation have been exercising compulsory powers of purchase such as they will be given specifically under the Air Navigation Bill under an Act of 1930, the Public Works Facilities Act. Not content with the right to exercise compulsory powers of purchase for the purpose of establishing this aerodrome, the Corporation, under Part IV, have adopted certain provisions of the Ribbon Development Act, and by means of those provisions will, if Part IV remains in the Bill, make it an offence for anyone to raise an obstruction to a greater altitude than I have mentioned within the protected area, without the consent of the Corporation. The reason why the Birmingham Corporation have discarded the opportunities given by the Air Navigation Bill in favour of this scheme of their own appear in a

circular which has been sent to hon. Members, in which they say:
The Corporation are not adopting compulsory purchase partly because the cost would be prohibitive and partly because there seems to be no justification for depriving the owners of their property when the object can be attained by less stringent means.
Taking the second reason first, I think it is absurd to argue in that way, because the fact that compulsory powers are available does not mean that they necessarily have to be exercised. It is possible that the Corporation, when approaching an owner whose land they desire to restrict, will find him, if he desires to retain his land, quite agreeable to accept restrictive covenants. It seems to me that under the compulsory powers of the Air Navigation Bill the owner of the land will have the choice of what he shall do. If he is content to accept the restrictions he will stay on his land and enter into a covenant, but if, on the other hand, he considers the restrictions intolerable he will sell to the Corporation. Under Part IV it is the other way round; the owner of the land will have no choice but the Birmingham Corporation will have a choice, because under this Bill they are not only asking for the right to restrict, which is contained in Part IV, but they are taking to themselves the powers of compulsory purchase.
The first reason given, namely, that the cost would be prohibitive, deserves a little examination. We are told that these restrictions will not be very grievous. If that is so the Corporation, having purchased the land under compulsory powers, can quite easily attach to it restrictive covenants and resell, and if those restrictions are not severe the difference in the prices at which they have to buy and offer to sell will not be very serious. Therefore, I think the question of cost ought not to defeat them. None the less, even if the cost were going to be a very heavy matter, surely it is right that it should be at the expense of the Corporation and not at the expense of the landowners. To justify the provisions of Part IV it must be proved either that they are better provisions than those in the Air Navigation Bill—and if that is so, I should like to know why hon. Members who had these provisions in mind did not move Amendments to the Air Navigation Bill with a


view to their incorporation—or that there is something about the neighbourhood of Birmingham which is quite different from the neighbourhood of other cities which are establishing air ports. Before the Private Bill Committee the only argument put forward on that point, so far as I can recollect, was that the neighbourhood of Birmingham is extremely foggy. I think it is probably the first time it has ever been claimed that we should have differential legislation in order to meet the prevailing conditions of weather. On 22nd June, when this question was debated on a motion that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to leave out Part IV, the Under-Secretary for Air said:
The proposals in Part IV are novel and far-reaching, and my Noble Friend feels that their grant or rejection is a matter for the House itself to decide. I would remind hon. Members that under the Air Navigation Bill now before the House there are provisions to enable local authorities to ensure that the land in the vicinity of an aerodrome should be kept free from dangerous obstructions. … There is also a provision for the illumination of obstructions in the neighbourhood of aerodromes. My Noble Friend does not, therefore, propose to ask the House to give powers to local authorities in excess of those which are in the general Bill now before the House. Under that Bill, as hon. Members know, it will be possible for municipalities to acquire land compulsorily if necessary. They will have those powers as permanent powers, which they have not had before; and not only that, but they will be able to sell or to let that land subject to restrictive covenants, which is something they have not hitherto been able to do. Those powers will be available for all local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1936; col. 1512, Vol. 313.]
I hope that to-night the Under-Secretary for Air will stand up for his own Bill, because I cannot see how the Government can possibly welcome the sort of competitive legislation which is contained in Part IV. I am sure that careful consideration was given to the provisions contained in the Air Navigation Bill, and if he considers that Part IV is better, then I hope that the Government will take steps to adopt it and to incorporate it in the general law of the land, but I hope he will tell the House to-night that it is unnecessary and most undesirable that the Birmingham Corporation should be given these exceptional powers. Before the committee a certain amount of evidence was given,

but I urge that this is not a case for external evidence, but that this House is just as capable of considering this matter with care as any committee having before it all the expert evidence available. It is not a question of evidence at all, except the internal evidence of the Bill itself.
A point has been made of the fact that no petitions were presented against this Bill. I think that is intelligible. It is quite natural that humbler people should say, "It is no use trying to fight Birmingham." After all, when Birmingham can arrive with an array of counsel, Parliamentary agents, solicitors and expert witnesses it is natural that private individuals should be frightened away from expending a great deal of money in presenting petitions. There is one point with which I should like to end. The Postmaster-General is exempted from the provisions of this Bill, and I hope and I feel sure that the House will have just as close a regard for the rights of private individuals as for those of the Postmaster-General. I ask the House to say that the powers given by the Air Navigation Bill are adequate, and that there is no reason for distinguishing Birmingham from other cities which desire to establish air ports.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It might be as well if I were to explain the reasons why we are opposing this Measure upon the Report stage. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the matter was discussed upon the Second Reading; we thought it would be wise to send it to the Committee. As hon. Members well know, when a Bill is sent to a Committee it is assumed that both sides will be represented and that the Committee is a judicial Committee which will hear both sides and deliver judgment accordingly. This Bill went to a Committee consisting of very distinguished Members, but only one side was represented. There was no opposition representation at all. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will have an opportunity of making their speeches afterwards. The Committee heard ex parte statements. In view of the fact that, as a judicial Committee, they could not take to themselves the functions of opposition, they


naturally listened to the ex parte statements, and, there being no opposition, the Bill came down to us in its present form from that Committee. I hope that nothing I have said will cast any aspersion upon members of that Committee.
Hon. Members may ask why there was no opposition. In the belt surrounding the aerodrome there is a large number of small landowners. In order to create opposition they must first know Parliamentary procedure. They have then to get together, create a fighting fund and employ, out of their own pockets, Parliamentary counsel. Then they can petition. In Parliamentary procedure, unless your petition is put in within a certain period, you are precluded from petitioning at all. I would emphasise that any landowner or any householder in this country is entitled to look to the House of Commons for justice. It should not necessarily mean that they have to petition in order to obtain it.
The Birmingham Corporation very properly desire an aerodrome for civil aviation, for the benefit and in the interests of Birmingham. The aerodrome would be inadequate for the whole country, and I believe that the Birmingham Corporation are more prudent than to make that claim. They would prefer to provide their own facilities and to let other local authorities look after their own aerodromes. The Corporation purchased sufficient land to make an aerodrome, and then, instead of using compulsory powers to obtain the land around the other two belts, in order to safeguard the take-off and the in-come of their aeroplanes, they preferred to ask this House for restrictive measures which would sterilise all that land around. We are all very concerned about the safety of taking-off and in-coming of aeroplanes, but the only question which we have to decide is, who is to pay? Are the small landowners to pay by having their land sterilised, or are the Birmingham Corporation to pay? The Corporation say that if a landowner can put up a case to show that compensation should be paid, there is a Clause by which he can receive compensation.
I ask any hon. Member to imagine that he owned a piece of land with a perfectly clean, clear title which would enable him to develop the land now or in the near future, and that the Birmingham

Corporation proposed to take it away from him and to substitute a restricted title. If the development of that land is restricted because of some provision in regard to the heights of buildings, or what not, the title is restricted. I have in mind one large tract of land which, as the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment said, slopes up. If you reckoned 75 feet from the base of the land, even for agricultural purposes, you could not put up a haystack higher than five feet, because it would exceed the 75 feet. The Corporation say that there will be no depreciation. If so, why can they not use their compulsory purchase power and resell or let? If there is no depreciation, there will be no loss to Birmingham, and everybody will be happy.
I am a member of a group in this House which has, since the beginning of 1932, examined all the Private Bills that come before us, with the object of deleting objectionable Clauses brought in by local authorities, when we believe that those Clauses ought to be of national application. This question is one touching not only Birmingham Corporation; it is a national question, because if it is passed by this House it will create a precedent for all local authorities throughout the country. Birmingham, obviously, framed their Bill long before the Air Navigation Bill was framed. The Air Ministry, who are erecting aerodromes all over the country, very prudently asked for powers as wide as possible in order to build their aerodromes in perfect safety in every respect. In the Air Navigation Bill powers were conferred upon local authorities similar to the powers which the Ministry required for the Royal Air Force. Birmingham Corporation are asking for powers greater than those possessed by the Air Ministry, or than this House thought necessary to confer in the Air Navigation Bill. If Birmingham would be satisfied with the powers in the Air Navigation Bill, we should not be objecting now. If Part IV of the Bill be deleted, Birmingham will be no worse off, because the powers conferred by the Air Navigation Bill upon Birmingham local authority will be automatic.
A precedent is sought in this case by a local authority, and I am asking the House to say that it ought not to be allowed to pass. If it be said that the Air Navigation Bill does not give


sufficient powers to any local authority, I reply that a fresh Bill should be introduced by the Government which should be of general application, covering all the local authorities of the country. It should not be necessary for local authorities, one after another, to introduce Private Bills, in order to obtain powers to run aerodromes. The Birmingham aerodrome is not intended to be a military aerodrome but a civil aerodrome. It is ostensibly, whatever may be said to the contrary by my distinguished colleague, for the benefit of the ratepayers of Birmingham.
It is said that there is provision for compensation. Landowners would have to bring an action against the Corporation, but the ordinary man who owns a piece of land, and who thinks that he is suffering injustice, would have to bring the action out of his own resources against the Birmingham Corporation, who would defend the action out of the ratepayers' money, to which the piece of land in question may have subscribed. If Birmingham Corporation should suggest that there is matter of principle which should go to the House of Lords, what little landowner could afford it? The Corporation say that the case may go to arbitration, but the man would have to pay for it out of his own pocket, while Birmingham Corporation would pay for it out of the ratepayers' resources. I submit with confidence to hon. Members that they should see that justice is done to those little people. I know that hon. Members opposite are always in favour of giving power to local authorities, but I am sure, if they look at the facts and deal with the position as it is, that they will say that if Birmingham Corporation want power to deal with those outer belts, the powers contained in the Air Navigation Bill are sufficient for the purpose. We intend to take this matter to a Division, and I sincerely hope that this iniquitous Part of the Bill will be deleted.

7.58 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Sir Dennis Herbert): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I say a word, in my official capacity, in regard to the Motion before the House, relating to Part IV of the Bill. As we are at the beginning of a new Parliament it may be well for me to

state in a few words, as I have done on other occasions, what my duty here is. I am officially, so to speak, in charge of every private Bill introduced into this House, but not in the way in which a Member of the Government is in charge of a Bill, to defend it through thick and thin. My duty is to see that the promoters get a fair hearing, that the petitioners against the Bill, if any, get an equally fair hearing, so far as possible to see that the ordinary practice of Parliament is observed and, if I find it necessary and right, in the interests of the Committee to give the House some information as to the Bill and as to the Committee's decisions with regard to it.
The House will remember that, as my hon. Friends have already said, this matter was debated on Second Reading, and, listening to my hon. Friends, I did not hear anything which was new, if I may venture to say so, or which was not said on the Second Reading, in any of the arguments which they put forward to-night. But they then came, I think, to a perfectly proper conclusion, and I cannot do better, in explaining that, than call to my aid the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), whom I do not see in his place at the moment, but who is one of those whose names are attached to this Amendment. On that occasion he said:
There may be exceptional cases where a local authority ought to have powers in excess of the general body of powers contained in a general public Act"—
that, of course, was in reference to the Air Navigation Bill, which is now nearing the Statute Book—
and the Committees upstairs exist for the purpose of considering whether any particular municipality should receive powers in excess of the customary powers. They have the advantage of hearing evidence presented to them with the help of Counsel, and of seeing maps and hearing all about the circumstances of the district. I do not think that the Birmingham Corporation ought to be denied that right.
The Birmingham Corporation had that right, and the matter was heard before a Private Bill Committee. My hon. Friend went on to say:
Let us assume that the Bill goes upstairs, and four of our colleagues, who sit as a Select Committee to consider it, are ultimately driven to the conclusion that in this particular case, for special local, geographical and other reasons, these peculiar powers are justified. Birmingham will then


get them, but that will not justify anyone else getting them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1936; col. 1511, Vol. 313.]
I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not here, because I would like him to explain why, after making that speech, he put his name to an Amendment to leave out Part IV of the Bill.

Mr. LEVY: May I be allowed to enlighten my right hon. Friend on that subject? May I say, as one of those who dealt with the matter on that occasion, that we came to the conclusion that both sides would be represented, and that the Committee would be able to give a verdict on the evidence put before them by both sides? In this case, however, both sides were not represented.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: My hon. Friend is now referring to a point with which I was just going to deal, because he dealt with it in his speech. It was the next point that I was going to take. I think that every single one of the arguments which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) was considered most carefully by the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth referred to the proceedings before the Committee, and I assume, therefore, that either he was present at those puroceedings or, at any rate, had read the transcript, as I have done to-day. In that case he must know that those arguments: were put before the Committee. The whole matter was gone into at very much greater length and in much more detail than would be possible for my hon. Friend in putting it before the House here, and all those arguments were answered to the satisfaction of the Committee, who, consequently, found in favour of the Corporation of Birmingham in regard to this particular part of the Bill.
I come now to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Elland, and I really must, as a matter of duty apart from anything else, protest against his description of a Private Bill Committee and the way in which they do their work. It is perfectly true, technically, to say that there was no opposition. Both of my hon. Friends in their own way have tried to explain that, and it is a fact that there were no petitioners against the Bill; but, owing to the

Debate which took place on the Second Reading, and the importance which hon. Members in many parts of the House seemed to attach to this Bill, I, in the exercise of the power which is vested in me, referred the Bill to what is known as an Opposed Bill Committee, although the Bill was not opposed, partly in order that that Committee might have the advantage of hearing counsel for the only party they could hear, namely, the promoters. I am perfectly certain that any lawyer in this House, or anyone acquainted with the law courts, will realise that a Committee of this kind derive very great assistance from having counsel before them, even in the interests of other par ties who are not there and whose interests might be different from those of the promoters—

Sir PATRICK HANNON: May I remind my right hon. Friend that in point of fact counsel did present both sides of the case in the submission which he made to the Committee?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend; I was just going to mention the fact. I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that Mr. Tyldesley Jones, a very distinguished Parliamentary counsel, who appeared before the Committee, used these words in dealing with a point in connection with the question of compensation:
If the Committee take the view that that is right, well and good, but I do feel that it is my duty to call your attention to it.
That was a point against his own clients which he himself had raised. A little later he said:
May I say this? I drew your attention to this point, and we put it forward, but perfectly frankly, when I am appearing for the Corporation and I have no opponents, I do think it is my duty to draw your attention to points which appear to me to require your consideration, and there is this point.
I am not going to argue the case on its merits; that is a matter entirely for the House; but it is my duty to protect to some extent the Private Bill Committee who heard evidence and went into this matter with the greatest care, and who, in accordance with the usual practice of such committees, if I may say so, especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Elland, went into the matter,


obviously, in the interests of anybody who might be affected and who was not there present at the time. I believe I am right in saying that Parliamentary agents sometimes take the view that those who are likely to be, or may be, adversely affected, are sometimes, like a poor person who is looked after by the magistrate in a police court, very much better taken care of by the Committee than if they were represented by counsel. I think that that was so on this occasion.

Sir J. MELLOR: May I point out that I never made the slightest reflection upon the Private Bill Committee, or suggested that the counsel, Parliamentary agents and other professional gentlemen in any way behaved unfairly in any circumstances? What I did suggest was that people in the neighbourhood of a city like Birmingham might feel at such a great disadvantage, in the face of such an array of professional talent, that they would hesitate to fight the Birmingham Corporation.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I quite absolve my hon. Friend from having said anything wrong or any thing derogatory to the Members of the Private Bill Committee or anyone else personally in this case, but I cannot help feeling a certain amount of amusement at the idea of the great city of Birmingham being frightened by the Parliamentary agents concerned. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is the other way round!"] I should have said the large number of people in the city of Birmingham—

Sir J. MELLOR: In the county of Warwickshire.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I have never heard that the people of Warwickshire were in any way lacking in standing up for their rights. May I proceed with the case which I want to put to the House? I would put it quite shortly in this way, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon said, the proper body to go into these matters was a Private Bill Committee upstairs. The Bill went to a Private Bill Committee upstairs, as though it had been an opposed Bill, in order that every possible chance might be given to those, who might be affected to have the whole matter thoroughly inquired into.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I have read the report of the committee, but there is not one word in the report of the committee dealing with the subject-matter of the Debate on the Instruction which was moved after the Second Reading, namely, that Birmingham was to be given powers different from those provided for every other municipality under the Government Bill which I imagine will receive the Royal Assent on Friday. There is nothing about that in the report.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has the evidence—

Mr. WILLIAMS: No, the report.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I am talking about the evidence. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon was present at the proceedings before the committee, but, as he has put his name to the Amendment, I assume that he has read the evidence through. Perhaps the House will accept it from me that the point was dealt with by the committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether this evidence is available in the Vote Office? I asked three or four days ago for the report on the Bill, and this document which I have here is the only one with which I was furnished.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: My hon. Friend is quite right; the evidence is not available in the Vote Office; but, if he had inquired at the Private Bill Office, he could have got it. However that may be, I have got it, and I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that what he said just now was mistaken, and that the matter was dealt with very carefully and thoroughly by the Committee.

Mr. WILLIAMS: All that I said was that in the report, which is the document officially presented to the House—what is available in the Private Bill Office I do not know—there is not a single, solitary word on the subject-matter which gave rise to the discussion.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: Perhaps my hon. Friend has got hold of the wrong document for the purpose of his case. I spent this morning again studying this transcript of proceedings, and I can assure the Committee


that all these matters, including the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend, were gone into very carefully by the Committee and discussed with counsel and ultimately the Committee, having had the advantage of maps, hearing witnesses and seeing them, came to the conclusion that Birmingham was justified in asking for these powers, and that the powers in the Air Navigation Bill would not be sufficient in the circumstances. I think, therefore, it is my duty to advise the House that, in accordance with its usual practice, it should accept the views of the Committee in regard to this particular point that the Committee had to deal with. If there is any point of principle otherwise on which hon. Members desire to oppose this as, for instance, general antagonism to anything in the nature of an aerodrome near a big city, they are quite justified in doing so, but every single one of the points that have been referred to by my hon. Friend the Committee went into most carefully, and it is my duty to say to them that, in the words of my hon. Friend which I quoted, I am sorry to say before he came in, which he used in the previous Debate, it is the proper course for the House to take to give Birmingham these powers. I will quote his words again as he was not here when I did so before:
Let us assume that the Bill goes upstairs, and four of our colleagues, who sit as a Select Committee to consider it, are ultimately driven to the conclusion that in this particular case, for special local, geographical and other reasons, these peculiar powers are justified. Birmingham will then get them, but that will not justify anyone else getting them.
My hon. Friend has got hold of a document which is the formal report, in the usual form, of the findings of the committee. They certainly do not in this report go into any full details. I am sure that this House will accept it from me that every single one of these things has been dealt with, and the committee, after going into them most thoroughly, came to the conclusion that Birmingham ought to have these powers.
May I add this one word, which I think I am justified in doing in this case? Aviation and air navigation is, comparatively speakng, a new matter for Parliament, or Governments, or local authorities to deal with. We have much to learn about it yet, and I do not suppose that

the Air Ministry for a moment imagines that the Air Navigation Bill is likely to be the last word that Parliament will have to say on the subject during the next 10 years. Anyone who has had the advantage of reading, as I have done, the evidence that has been given before that committee will realise that every locality—it is not merely a question of the district round Birmingham—will probably require somewhat different powers, if it establishes a big aerodrome like this, different from those required in another locality in a different part of the country, and a case was clearly made out before the committee as to the insufficiency of the powers in the Air Navigation Bill in the case of Birmingham and the fact that, so far as the committee could ascertain, nobody would be harmed by it without having the ordinary rights to compensation, and these questions of compensation also were gone into very carefully, and indeed the terms of this part of the Bill were altered and strengthened. The arguments which up to now have been put before the House were put much more fully before the committee and all the points were taken by the committee, the whole matter was gone into, and it was after that judicial investigation that the committee came to the conclusion that this part of the Bill ought to be given to the Corporation of Birmingham.

Sir J. MELLOR: Do I understand correctly the right hon. Gentleman's view that the Report stage of a private Bill should be a matter of form in so far as concerns matters that have been discussed before the committee?

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I think the hon. Baronet has put it just about correctly. To put it in my own words, the Report stage should not be used as an occasion for throwing out a Private Bill, or part of a Private Bill, on any of those matters which have been, by order of the House, investigated by a Private Bill Committee, unless on a point of principle on which Members of the House feel that they are against the Bill. May I, without wishing to say anything unpleasant, I hope, to either party, say that there are Private Bills, as we all know, which involve sometimes questions which are in issue between the principal political parties? If that is so,


I do not complain of Members of one party voting against the Bill at every stage. But there is no question of that sort here. Where it is a question of an ordinary matter dealt with by a Private Bill, where a committee has come to certain conclusions and passed the Bill in a certain form on those matters which have been referred to it, and on which it has taken evidence, it is the common practice of this House to accept its findings on the Report stage. Indeed, that was the main object of my rising, to say that that was so, and to explain the way in which the committee has done its duty in regard to this Bill.

8.22 p.m.

Sir P. HANNON: I think the House will be particularly grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for the speech that he has delivered to us, and to new Members especially it will be a great advantage to realise the respect in the proceedings of the House in which Private Bill Committees stand. The two hon. Members who moved the elimination of Part IV of the Bill were a little bit emphatic and extravagant in the views that they submitted. If in a Bill providing in Part IV for all those safeguards which are essential in the case of aircraft approaching to and departing from aerodromes—if in making provision for that measure of safety they were so much disturbed as the hon. Baronet would suggest at the restrictions that were suggested in this Bill, the details of which were submitted to every person concerned in the whole of the area affected, if it affected the rights of property so intimately around the aerodrome centre, why was not some definite organised protest made against the Bill? It is a very extraordinary thing that during the long time that this Bill has been before the House and when the object of the introduction of the Bill has been familiar to everybody concerned with the establishment of this aerodrome, no organised effort of any kind has been forthcoming from the landowners and those immediately concerned in the area which the aerodrome is contemplated to occupy. Only one protest, and that of a very indefinite and vague character, has been presented since the original notice was served on the local parties interested

and since this Bill took its place in its various stages before this House.

Sir J. MELLOR: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstood me. I did not suggest that there had been any violent protest. I endeavoured to make it clear to him and to the House that I had been objecting on the grounds of principle.

Sir P. HANNON: In this world of ours we often have to ask ourselves what is principle. It is one of those vague and indefinable terms which so often enter into political discourses, and my hon. Friend opposite will forgive me if I say that the principle, in its application in this case, is a very limited commodity. I think that in relation to the promotion and establishment of this aerodrome the Corporation of Birmingham deserve the commendation of the whole country. Here is an enterprise on the part of that corporation which is not merely for the benefit of Birmingham itself, but it may indeed become in the process of time a component part of the organised aerial defence of this country. My hon. Friend beside me, who so lightly cast aside the possibility of a national advantage from this aerodrome, forgets that this is the first case in which a municipality in this country has sought all these powers for the purpose of giving a lead to the Air Ministry in the organisation of aerodromes throughout the country.
It is necessary to have these restrictions over the area concerned for the safety of aircraft arriving at and leaving the aerodrome. There were two courses open to the Corporation of Birmingham, either to buy the land, or ask Parliament for the power to impose the restrictions which are sought in Part IV of the Bill. To buy the land would have been a very heavy burden upon the ratepayers of Birmingham, and, as my hon. Friend has said, it is in the interests of the ratepayers of Birmingham that this aerodrome should be provided, but in regard to this great effort on the part of Birmingham to provide aerial transport in the Midlands, it will take a very long time before the ratepayers of Birmingham can be relieved of their responsibility in relation to it. The Birmingham Corporation have undertaken, in the establishment of the aerodrome, a liability of very nearly £500,000, and that is something which ought to be endorsed with approval by this House.
We do not want to deprive the owners of the property in the protected area around the aerodrome of their rights to enjoy their property so long as they comply with the conditions laid down in Part IV of the Bill. We ask only that these restrictions should be such as will secure the safety of the coming and going of aircraft, with provision of the necessary apparatus and all the elements of safety in the aerodrome area. I will read to the Committee a letter which has been addressed to the Corporation by the Air Ministry, but before I do so I want to say that my hon. Friends, who issued a Whip to Members of this House to come here this evening and support them in the rejection of Part IV of this Bill might at least have made it plain in the circular which they issued, that compensation was contemplated in the case of buildings and trees and so forth, to which the restriction would apply in regard to the aerodrome.

Mr. EDE: Will the hon. Gentleman read us the Whip, because hon. Members on this side of the House were not favoured with it?

Sir P. HANNON: I do not know that it is necessary to detain the House by reading the Whip issued by the opponents of the Bill, but if it is the wish of the House, I will certainly read it. This is the circular note which was sent round to Members of the House of Commons to assist in the elimination of Part IV of the Bill:
On Tuesday, 28th July, at 7.30"—
You see how precise my hon. Friends have been—
there will be a Debate, and afterwards probably a Division on our Motion to leave out Part IV of the Bill. Part IV will give the Birmingham Corporation power to interfere with the rights of the ownership of land in the vicinity in excess of the powers proposed by the Government and confirmed in the House of Commons and included in the Air Navigation Bill. The Air Navigation Bill will give local authorities compulsory powers to acquire land in order to control its development. The Birmingham Corporation is not willing to buy the land, and seeks powers in Part IV to restrict the height of buildings, trees, etc.
There is not a single word about the fact that wherever they had to acquire rights over buildings or impose restrictions, compensation was always contemplated as part of the scheme. This

document is signed by 12 distinguished colleagues of mine in the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who are they?"] They include the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tamworth Division (Sir J. Mellor), in whose constituency the aerodrome is situated, and who, of course, is perfectly entitled to voice the interests of his constituents, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Elland (Mr. Levy), the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who is not in his place at the moment, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears), whom I do not see here, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wolverhampton (Sir K. Bird), who I see in his place to-night, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), the hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicholson).
The extract from the letter which I propose to read, which has been addressed to the Corporation of Birmingham by the Air Ministry, is worthy of the careful consideration of the House. This is an extract from the letter:
The Secretary of State has already expressed the view, in his letter of the 15th November last, that the restrictions for which provision is made in the Bill are no more than are reasonably necessary to protect the aerodrome from obstruction; and he is prepared, if you wish it, to amplify his previous observations to the extent of adding that the proposed undertaking is, in his opinion, entirely satisfactory from the technical and operational points of view, and that the Bill contains, in the words of your letter, sufficient and adequate provisions for the protection of the aerodrome and persons navigating by air to and from it.
He also raises no objection to your bringing the contents of this letter, and of his letter of the 15th November last, to the notice of the Parliamentary Committee, and suggests that you may wish to draw their attention to the fact that the Air Navigation Bill, now awaiting Second Reading in the House of Commons, contains provisions empowering local authorities to protect the air approaches to aerodromes under their control by the compulsory purchase of the surrounding land. He doubts, however, whether, having thus


expressed approval in principle of your clients' Bill, so far as it relates to the aerodrome undertaking, he can suitably comment further on what may be described its local merits, or so far identify himself with your clients' proposals as to make his views the subject of a special report to Parliament.
We can, of course, understand the last part of the letter from the Air Minister.
The Bill has been examined upstairs, and I am glad to see that my hon. Friend who was Chairman of the Committee is here. No doubt he will address the House afterwards. All that we are asking for is that these powers, which are sought in the interests of the development of air navigation in this country, should be granted. If hon. Members contend that they are slightly in advance of the provisions of the Air Navigation Bill, I would ask them to recall the fact that Private Bill legislation in this country has from time to time given a lead to national legislation. If on this occasion Birmingham asks for a little more than may seem desirable in itself, I would say that it may become a very important feature in national legislation in the future.
Birmingham does not ask for any privileges of any sort or kind. We are a highly self-respecting community in Birmingham, and we are imbued with an outstanding spirit of enterprise. This Bill is an example of the lead we are trying to give to the rest of the country in regard to air navigation, and we ask the House to reject the Amendment and to support the Corporation, after having heard what has been said by the Chairman of Ways and Means. The Corporation of Birmingham submitted its case in all its aspects to the House in the first place and afterwards to the Opposed Bills Committee and, as the Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out, Parliamentary counsel, as was his duty, took the opportunity of placing both sides fairly and squarely before the Committee. Apart altogether from any local considerations, in view of the fact that Birmingham in the general interests is seeking to give a great enterprise the opportunity of development and expansion, I ask the House to support us in carrying the Bill to-night.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: After the alarums and excursions of last week it is very pleasant to be able to discuss a matter

of this kind in a sort of Olympian calm, and I do not wish to say anything to disturb that calmness, which many of us enjoy. The hon. Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon) read out a list of Members of this House who had signed a Whip. I was not responsible for sending it out, and I regret it, although I did add my name to it. It was not sent to hon. Members opposite, whose support we hope we shall get in the Lobby to-night. I will explain to them the reason why we are moving to omit Part IV of the Bill. I shall have something to say a little later about the hon. Member for the Moseley Division.
First, I should like, perhaps imprudently and rashly, to take up something that was said by the Chairman of Ways and Means. He is a bold man who embarks on a discussion with the Chairman of Ways and Means, but, with the rashness and innocence of youth, I am going to try to do so. At the end of his speech, when he was interrupted by the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor), I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when a Bill had come down here for the Report stage, having been discussed fully in the Opposed Bills Committee or in the Unopposed Bills Committee, it was open to the House only to make alterations or Amendments or to turn it down entirely if there was an overwhelming case made out on a point of principle.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: I said that it was the common practice of this House.

Mr. PETHERICK: I accept the correction. I am very ignorant in matters of procedure compared with the right hon. Gentleman. The common practice is, when a Bill comes down after having been fully discussed upstairs, that the House should not turn it down unless a great matter of principle is involved. Every hon. Member must be impressed by the admirable work which the Opposed Bills Committee and the Unopposed Bills Committee do in their discussion of the Bills which are sent to them. It is very rare for the decision of an Unopposed Bills Committee to be challenged. Bills go to them upstairs and they come down again after very careful discussion. It would not be too much to refer to that Committee as that "bourne from which no traveller returns."
In this particular case, for peculiar reasons, the Bill was sent to the Opposed Bills Committee in order that it might have very careful consideration. The Bill had very careful consideration upstairs but, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) said, there is nothing in the report of the Committee to show the reasons why the line of action that we are adopting to-night was disapproved of upstairs. With due respect to the Chairman of Ways and Means, he did not adduce any reasons why the course which we are adopting to-night was not one which would receive the approval of the House, although not the approval of the Committee upstairs. All that he said was that it had not received the approval of the Committee, and that we should look to the evidence which was adduced in order to see the reason why. But the evidence does not show why. Evidence merely consists of facts which are produced before a Committee or a court of law. The reasons which are given are generally given in the summing up of a judge or in his judgment, or in a case of this kind they are given in the report of the Committee, but no reasons have been adduced against our Amendment to-night to omit Part IV.

Mr. FLEMING: Can the hon. Member explain why it is that the opposition to Part IV which is so vocal this evening was not represented by counsel before the Opposed Bills Committee?

Mr. PETHERICK: Unfortunately, they were not able to be represented before the Opposed Bills Committee. The Bill was sent to the Opposed Bills Committee as a matter of form. We withdrew our Instruction on the Second Reading, but by the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, over which this House has no control, the Bill was sent to the Opposed Bills Committee instead of the Unopposed Bills Committee.

Mr. FLEMING: Is it not the fact that no petition whatever was presented against the Bill?

Mr. PETHERICK: I am proposing to deal with that. What is the object of the Bill? It was clearly stated on the Second reading by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Cartland), who said that the first consideration was the safety of airmen. That is indeed a consideration, but the first consideration is the

safety of people near the aerodrome, who may possibly be killed if proper precautions are not taken. We have to consider the safety of the airmen using the aerodrome and the safety of the public. The hon. Member for King's Norton said that the proposal for compulsory purchase which is advocated by many is very much more drastic than the restrictions which are being asked for by the Birmingham Corporation. He was answered by the hon. Member for Tamworth, who said that if the Birmingham Corporation were obliged to purchase the whole of the area owners had two courses open to them; they could sell to the Birmingham Corporation or they could accept the restrictions. I am anxious to know why the Birmingham Corporation did not buy the 1,700 extra acres necessary instead of dealing with the matter by restriction. The only conceivable reason is that of expense. If the restrictions are going to do no damage to the property owner it seems to me that the question of expense does not enter into it. Having raised a loan and bought the 1,700 acres, they could sell that part of the area which they do not desire to keep and get back the purchase money in that way, and then deal with the remainder by letting it out. The rates would not be one penny worse off, unless, of course, the restrictions are in fact going to do damage to property owners. If they are, then obviously the fullest compensation should be paid. The hon. Member for Moseley said that nothing was mentioned about compensation when the Instruction was moved.

Sir P. HANNON: What I said was that those who advocate the elimination of Part IV of the Bill should have mentioned the word "compensation" in their circular.

Mr. PETHERICK: I regret that it was not included, but I am not responsible for the circular. The hon. Member for Moseley pointed out with great pride that the Birmingham Corporation are going to pay compensation in certain cases, but I must point out that compensation is offered only if proposals for the development of the land are practicable, or would have been if the Bill was not passed. In other words, the owner has to prove in a comparatively short time after the Bill has been passed that he was proposing to develop his land and that he cannot do so because of the passing of the Bill. That


is merely to say that for a short time only after the passing of the Bill is the property owner protected. I do not see why any vested interest, including trade unions, should not be protected and should not receive consideration. It is not right for a man who owns property to be told that he cannot deal with it as he likes because it may be of considerable value in the future, and that unless he can produce evidence immediately after the passing of the Bill that he proposes to develop his property he is not going to get compensation. It seems to me that compensation on those terms is absolutely worthless, it is not worth very much to property owners. Downright purchase should be carried out by the Birmingham Corporation. It would not prejudice their ratepayers and would be far preferable to the proposals in the Bill.
May I ask two specific questions? There is a reference in the beginning of Part IV to the protection of the aerodrome, and I cannot see that it is defined in any part of the Bill. Perhaps an hon. Member on behalf of the promoters can point to a definition Clause. The other point is with regard to Clause 19, the removal of obstruction. The Corporation may give notice to the owner of any land to remove any obstruction, and if he does not then they are entitled to do it themselves. I do not know who is to pay for this removal, whether it is the Corporation or the owner. The point has been made that nobody has objected to the Bill. I can point to one powerful body which has objected—the London Midland and Scottish Railway. If they did not object, why were they put in the Bill at all? As the hon. Member for South Croydon has said, they were bought off, although he did not mean that in any offensive sense. It is obvious that the London Midland and Scottish Railway made a powerful objection to the Bill, and we claim that it is not right that a great, strong and powerful corporation or company should be able to get concessions in a Bill merely by the exercise of money which the ordinary private individual, the small owner of a house, is not able to get.

Sir P. HANNON: Would my hon. Friend please tell the House what he means when he refers to the use of money? Does he suggest that money has

been used in the buying of some concessions? If he makes an accusation of that kind, I hope he will give the details.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am glad my hon. Friend interrupted me. I made no suggestion of that sort, and I think hon. Members will agree that I simply said that a rich corporation, it may be a municipality or a great company, is able, by the employment of Parliamentary agents, by being ready to fight a Bill through all its stages in the House, by the employment of counsel and solicitors, and by other methods, to make out a very strong case, whereas a small man would not be able to do so. I am glad the hon. Member interrupted me, because it has given me an opportunity to make myself quite plain. I am saying that these rich corporations, because of the powers at their disposal, are able to bring great pressure to bear to get a Bill in their faveur through Parliament, but the small owner of property in the Birmingham area is not in the same position, and it is for that reason that objections have not been raised. I see the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) opposite, and I know that he also stands up for the small man. He will know the Latin maxim:
"Quod vigi lantibus et non dormientibus obveniunt leges,"
which may be freely translated:
The law is for sharps, and not for flats.
Therefore, because these poor people are not themselves sharps, they are entirely unworthy of respect and consideration.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: Is not the hon. Member quite wrong in what he is saying? I see that in the Bill there are provisions for the protection of the trustees of William Barwick Cregoe Colmore, for the protection of W. and A. George, Limited—who are two individuals—and for the protection of James Upton, Limited, and Ada Anne Davis. All these persons have presumably applied for protection and got it, just as the London Midland and Scottish Railway.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am afraid I am not very familiar with the details concerning these ladies and gentlemen who have apparently received some form of protection, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has drawn attention. The only thing is that I think there is a large number of people who have not been able


to obtain protection because they have not been rich enough to afford the services of solicitors or perhaps of a legal adviser such as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The fact remains that there is a number of such people in Birmingham who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth pointed out, strongly object to the very large powers contained in this Bill.
In conclusion, a Bill has recently been passed through this House, the Air Navigation Bill, which gave certain powers to local authorities to insist that illuminations must be put up at aerodromes and that obstacles must be removed. At the same time the Birmingham Corporation, which we all admit is a representative governing body of a very great and a very well-governed city, has asked for wider powers than are granted under the general Bill. It has often been maintained that in certain cases a Corporation or local authority is entitled to wider powers than the general law of the land gives them, but I do not think it is right, at a time when a general Act is being passed laying down certain powers for local authorities, for a corporation to go further and to ask for increased powers. It is for that reason that I ask the House to vote with me and my hon. Friends who are moving to omit Part IV from this Bill.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. EDE: The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) closed his speech by intimating that, inasmuch as his friends had forgotten to favour hon. Members on this side of the House with the whip for this evening, he would address a few arguments to us that might induce us to support him in the Division Lobby. I am bound to say that I feel he rather forgot those arguments in the course of the speech he delivered to the House, because I cannot imagine a speech less likely to appeal to this side of the House. We have just celebrated the centenary of the greatest municipal man who ever lived in this country, a man who, as everybody on all sides of the House will admit, made Birmingham in the middle of the last century a place which every one interested in municipal work regarded with the very greatest pride.

Mr. GALLACHER: He did it with the assistance of the working class.

Mr. EDE: I recollect that on one occasion, before he became a Member of this House, he said he hoped he would be remembered as the man who removed the kidney pavements from Birmingham. If his ambitions had been confined to that, the world might be a happier place now than it is. But is it not strange that hon. Members opposite, who are so proud of the achievements of that man in other spheres, should to-night be engaged in restraining the Corporation of Birmingham in once again giving a lead to the municipalities of the country? I can only say that I hope my hon. Friends on these benches will take the same view as I do, that this is a matter on which we can safely go into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon). I sincerely hope that the House will pass this Bill to-night. All that is claimed by the Birmingham Corporation could have been done under town-planning, and it would not then have come before the House.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Member explain how the Birmingham Corporation can town-plan another municipal area?

Mr. EDE: By co-operation. The hon. Member's constituency adjoins the parish in which I live and the county in the administration of which I take some share. There we have a regional town-planning committee in which we co-operate and in which the desire of one corporation is given effect to in the area of the surrounding county. There is nothing more pleasant than the way in which co-operation in that matter takes place between the various municipalities and county and county boroughs of the country. The only difficulty is that town-planning is exceedingly slow, and the needs of the country in the matter of air navigation on the commercial and pleasure side are exceedingly urgent. The Birmingham Corporation, faced with the problem of developing this aerodrome, and of giving effect to their proposals, have had to come to the House, and I hope the House is not going to embark on a series of contests with the great municipalities of the country with regard to the needs of their immediate vicinity. I am bound to say that I think the most useful work done by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in


public life was done by him as a Member of the Wimbledon Borough Council, and I thought that he would have more regard to the feelings of such an exceedingly independent body as the Wimbledon Borough Council than to start a general campaign of opposition to the municipalities of the country. This Measure has been considered already on sworn evidence. I am afraid if the hon. Member for South Croydon and the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth were called upon to give first-hand evidence on the actual facts of the case they would be placed in the position of the lady who, having heard the terms of the oath, to speak "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" said, "With all those limitations, I feel that I can offer no useful observations."
Although no petitions were presented against the Bill it had the great advantage, because of opposition to it at an earlier stage, of being examined by the Committee on Opposed Bills. I have been a witness before that committee on several occasions and I know that particular care is taken by it to watch the interests of those who, owing to some technicality, are not represented before it. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) who has acted as Chairman of Private Bill Committees will bear out that statement. This Bill, as I say, had the advantage of being examined by that committee, having previously been debated in the House, so that the committee had no doubt about the concern of some hon. Members in this question. This great municipality is carrying on the tradition which it established in the past, in the setting up of a municipal bank for instance and in the great work of the late Joseph Chamberlain in municipalising gas and water services when such a step was regarded as the beginning of revolution. All those things entitled the Corporation of Birmingham to be treated with the greatest respect when it comes to this House for a Bill of this kind.
The hon. Member for South Croydon and his friends argue that it is wrong to have in private Bills promoted by corporations provisions which are not embodied in the general law of the land. That is a doctrine which we on this side repudiate. I encountered it earlier this

year when the hon. Member and some of his friends objected to the Surrey County Council Bill. They seem to take the line that they are a body of inquisitors before whom progressive authorities—using the word in a non-political sense—must go to be told how much they are to be allowed to get. Apparently if you are not prepared to bow the knee to the hon. Member and his friends you will have a rough time here at every stage of your Bill. We see an example of it in connection with this Bill of the Birmingham Corporation a body which cannot be accused of political sympathy with hon. Members on this side. I believe that the great municipalities of the country have often shown the way to Parliament in regard to reasonable developments within their own areas and obviously the provision of protection round an aerodrome is a special matter in relation to each area concerned. As the Chairman of Ways and Means rightly said—if I may venture even to express approval of what the right hon. Gentleman said—Birmingham in this matter presented their special case to the House; it has been specially considered and subjected to serious examination. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass the Measure and allow Birmingham to remain in the van of municipal progress.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I listened with the greatest pleasure to the chairman of the Surrey County Council paying off a few old scores against those who were responsible for having about 15 Clauses struck out of his own Bill. I am not surprised that the hon. Member is cross.

Mr. EDE: I am never cross.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He has come to the aid of his Conservative friends in the great city of Birmingham, but I wish somebody who is supporting the Bill would tell us precisely why these proposals are to be regarded as progressive. Nobody has troubled to do that, neither the big gun, if I may so refer to him the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, about whom we all speak with awe because we look forward to the occasions when he will sit in an other part of the Chamber and when we shall want to catch his eye—

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Order.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Well, we always hope to catch the right hon. Gentleman's eye, and the hon. Baronet himself is very often successful though his party is not very numerous. But we have not had the faintest suggestion from anybody to-night that these proposals are progressive or that there is the slightest justification for them. Is there the slightest reason why Birmingham should be given privileges other than those accorded to Manchester, Glasgow, Sheffield, Newcastle, or any other city? Why should Birmingham be put in this exceptional position? Did the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon), for whom I have the greatest respect, produce one solitary argument to show why this special arrangement should be made for Birmingham? It is no good merely saying that Birmingham was the home of the late Joseph Chamberlain. We know that. That does not prove that the present administrators of Birmingham are necessarily right when they produce a Bill which conflicts with the policy of the Government. We all regret that one of the Members for the City of Birmingham, who is also a Member of the Cabinet, has gout and cannot be with us. I presume that the Chancellor of the Exchequer approves of the Air Navigation Bill. In theory he does, because members of the Cabinet are collectively responsible for Government legislation. Then on what ground do his 11 Birmingham colleagues—and they are a very faithful band and always work together—oppose a Government Bill That is something we ought to know.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS: It is my duty, for the protection of the promoters of private Bills generally, to remind the House that if the Government oppose a private Bill they say so, and the hon. Member has no right whatever to suggest to the House that because the Government have promoted an Air Navigation Bill this Session, they are opposed to a private Bill, which, if I may say so, does not conflict with the policy of their Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am grateful to the Chairman of Ways and Means for the assistance he has given us. Here we have a document sent out by the Corporation, an extract from which was read by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley—a letter from the Air Ministry:

He also raises no objection to your bringing the contents of this letter of 15th November last to the Members of the Parliamentary Committee.
When that was read out, I was very much impressed. I thought this was a letter which they had written after the Debate which we had last month, but it was not. This was a letter written months ago. The plain truth of the matter is that the Air Ministry have got themselves in a mess over this job, and they have not the courage to write any letter of any kind to the Committee. Let us be frank about it. The Chairman of Ways and Means more or less attacked me because, on the Second Reading, I said that if this was properly examined and we had the advice of the Committee that it was a fit and proper Bill, the special exception was justified. I went into the Vote Office for the report of the Committee. The Chairman of Ways and Means rather suggested that I should have run round to some other part of the building to find the evidence. Why should Members of Parliament run round this building to find documents, the proper place for which is in the Vote Office? The Chairman attacked the Proposer and Seconder of this Motion—

Sir P. HANNON: My hon. Friend is as familiar with the methods to be employed in this House to obtain information as any hon. Member here. There is nothing connected with the finding of information here that he does not know, and he knew he could have got the evidence from the Parliamentary agents to the Birmingham Corporation.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am amazed that it is supposed to be the duty of a Member of Parliament to run round to the Parliamentary agents of the Corporation of Birmingham. Surely it is the duty of the agents to run round after us. At least, if it is not, we shall have to teach them that it is. We are the elected representatives of the people, and it is their duty to wait on us, and not our duty to wait on them. I think that is a doctrine to which I shall have general assent. We had a Debate on this Bill, and I was privileged, I think, to be the last speaker. At the request of my colleagues, I indicated that we were not going to divide because I hoped the thing would be ventilated in the appropriate way and that the case for and against


would be stated upstairs. The case against Part IV was not stated apparently, because there was nobody sufficiently interested in the matter to risk his wherewithal in presenting a petition and going through the expensive process of employing counsel and bringing witnesses. It is all very well for the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway, who maintain a Parliamentary office, to get protection, and it is all very well for the Postmaster-General to get protection. They have the organisation to do it. I do not know whether these people are big farmers or little farmers, big landowners or little landowners, but they did not do that, and as a result the case was not stated. To a material extent it went by default upstairs, because there was no one there to state it.
Why did we have a Debate after the Second Reading? It was because of Part IV. Therefore, when I go to the Vote Office a week ago and ask for the report, I am amazed at its contents. I do not blame my hon. and gallant Friend who was the Chairman of the Committee. He is following established procedure, but if this report represents established procedure, it is time we altered it. The report is a most inadequate document. I ask hon. Members to read it. There is not in it a single reference to the issue on which we had the Debate a month ago.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: Does the hon. Member ever see a report containing such a reference?

Mr. WILLIAMS: If that is the system of reporting, it is time we altered it. I think this House is entitled to have some guidance, and I really suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that to ask Members of Parliament to read 40 or 50 pages of evidence when a Committee has been appointed to advise them is too much. At least, it ought to be regarded as their duty, and I am not blaming my hon. and gallant Friend for following past procedure.

Mr. CARTLAND: Why is the advice of the Committee not accepted by the hon. Member?

Mr. WILLIAMS: Where is the advice? They heard the evidence, and they have pronounced judgment without giving the slightest indication why, and not one

speaker to-night has told us why Birmingham should appropriate the rights of certain people, whom I have never seen, instead of following the example which the Government propose for everybody else, namely, that they should purchase the land fairly and squarely and then let it out. That is the honest way of dealing with it. Why should Birmingham be put in this privileged position? What reference is there in the report to the only matter of controversy? They state:
The Bill does not give any powers which can be obtained by means of by-laws made subject to the restrictions of general Acts already existing.
Not a single reference to the fact that there is passing through Parliament a Bill which will alter the existing law. I say it is grossly unfair to this House that, after we had a Debate on Second Reading on this issue, and on no other, we should be placed in this position. No one objects to Birmingham having an aerodrome. The whole Debate has taken place on Part IV. I do not know whether this is the old procedure, but if this Committee represents the procedure, I hope that in future we shall have much more adequate reports from the Committee than we have had in the past. Surely it would not have been difficult for them to have said, "We have heard the evidence, and we consider that Birmingham should have these special powers. The reasons why Birmingham should have them are so and so, and on those grounds we think the Birmingham aerodrome ought to be treated differently from any other existing or future licensed municipal aerodrome." If such an argument had been put in, not one of my hon. Friends would have troubled to interfere with that most delightful of amusements, a Scottish Supply Day, but we have not been given any such argument.
The only argument which the Chairman of Ways and Means used was to say that I ought to have got the evidence. Most of us work rather hard in this Chamber, and most of us are persons who have some occupation whereby we try to earn a living in addition to doing our Parliamentary duties, and surely it is the duty of the judge and jury upstairs, when they have heard all the case, to tell us why they have come to their conclusion. I hope that to-night we shall vote on this question on the constitutional basis. Is it right in the same Session of Parliament


for two Bills to be passed dealing with identically the same subject and for the House to take decisions which are in fact contrary, unless it is given substantial reasons why in the lesser case a decision should be taken which is contrary to that taken in the major case. It is on that issue alone that we ought to vote to-night.

9.24 p.m.

Sir C. MacANDREW: I think that, as chairman of the committee which considered this Bill, I might be allowed to intervene for a moment or two. I can imagine that nothing would have annoyed my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) more than if the committee had not followed the procedure of this House. For the hon. Member to stand up in his place and criticise a report which I think it is absurd to criticise and to blame the committee on that ground, is most unfair. If the procedure of this House requires altering, this is not the occasion on which that should be suggested, and I may say that if we tried to alter our procedure to suit the views of individuals, we should very soon get into difficulties. The committee which considered this Bill were in absolute agreement that the Bill should be passed as it stands. One of the Members of the committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) has had to leave the Chamber, but he told me before he went a moment or so ago that I could associate him with what I was going to say, and the other two members of the committee are here beside me now.
It has been said that because there were no objections to this Bill we were unable to assess what was right and what was wrong. It does not do great credit to a Private Bill Committee, appointed by the Committee of Selection and drawn from all parties in the House, to say that we were not able to assess evidence. We are quite able to do that. In this case, as the Chairman of Ways and Means pointed out, counsel for Birmingham Corporation made one point against himself in his anxiety to put the case absolutely fairly. That point we thought reasonable and left in, but the idea that counsel were trying to throw sand in our eyes is absurd. There has been some talk about the enormous expense that private individuals would have been put to if they had tried to petition against the Bill.
As one who has served on these Private Bill Committees I think that a private individual appearing before a committee is listened to with respect, and probably the case put by a man who is not an experienced advocate carries more weight than that which is put by one of great experience. I hope the public will understand that they can appear and will get a fair hearing from the Private Bill Committees. The hon. Member for South Croydon said that no reasons had been given why the Birmingham Corporation should be given these powers. With my colleagues I had the advantage of hearing various reasons why these powers should be given. We had put before us the restrictions put on in France, Germany and other countries in regard to aerodromes. The Birmingham Corporation have taken powers more or less on all fours with what is done in Germany, and much less than what is done in France. That is a point that should not be forgotten.
Play has been made with the fact that there is an Air Navigation Bill which will become an Act before the end of this week, and that therefore the Birmingham Corporation should have been content with what was laid down in that Bill. Let me remind the House that the Corporation have been dealing with this matter for many months, they have been making preparations and buying land, and that as the Air Navigation Bill is not yet a Statute, they were entitled to come to the House with their Private Bill and ask for it to be passed. Why the hon. Member says that the Birmingham Bill conflicts with the Air Navigation Bill I cannot understand. In the Second Reading Debate the Under-Secretary for Air said:
My Noble Friend does not, therefore, propose to ask the House to give powers to local authorities in excess of those which are in the general Bill now before the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1936; col. 1512, Vol. 313.]
He did not give any indication that he was opposed to the Bill.

Mr. LYONS: Does not that follow from the statement which the hon. Member has read. Is it not implied?

Sir C. MacANDREW: No. If the hon. Gentleman had read the speech he would have seen that at the end of it the Under-Secretary of State said:
Therefore, it is for the House to decide whether in this particular case wider powers


are to be granted to the local authority, or whether if, as I am sure, my hon. Friends do not propose to push this Instruction to a Division, it should be referred to the Private Bill Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1936; col. 1513, Vol. 313.]
Surely if he thought it should be opposed he would have said so. He did not give any indication that he did not want the Bill passed. The hon. Member for Moseley Division (Sir P. Hannon) quoted from a letter of 15th November in which the Secretary of State said:
The restrictions for which provision is made in the Bill are no more than are reasonably necessary to protect the aerodrome from obstruction.
The Committee were unanimous and confident that this Bill should be passed as it stands. Some of those who want Part IV left out take the view that the Birmingham Corporation should work under the Air Navigation Bill. The only objection to doing that is that it would cost a great deal more money. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] For this reason. In an aerodrome the aeroplane is run on the ground for a distance and gradually rises, and therefore, although the land round the aerodrome is not required, the space is needed for rising, and surely it is common sense to take powers to restrict the height of buildings in the vicinity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sterilise it."] But the people will be compensated. If you can do it more cheaply that way I think it is preferable. This matter has been considered judicially, we have had the opportunity of hearing evidence and witnesses on oath, and it seems to me that it is reasonable that the Bill should be passed as it stands.
I hope no one will be misled by this Whip which has been quoted to-night. I was very much surprised when I saw the hon. Members who have put their signatures to it, and I thought they could have signed it only because they had not read the Birmingham Bill. It is most misleading to read that
the Birmingham Corporation are not willing to buy the land and seek powers in Part IV to restrict the height of buildings, trees, etc.
There will be compensation—

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: There is no proposal in the Bill for automatic compensation. It only arises in the remote event of it being possible to prove that

development schemes would have been undertaken.

Sir C. MacANDREW: I do not know what automatic compensation is but compensation in the ordinary sense is well safeguarded. The committee went into that very carefully, and if the hon. Member will look at the circular that was sent out he will see that they
amended the Clause relating to compensation in order to make it clear that compensation is payable if the consent to the erection of buildings is withheld or conditions are imposed.
I feel quite confident that the people in the vicinity of this aerodrome have been safeguarded. I hope, therefore, that the House will pass the Bill as it stands.

9.36 p.m.

Sir ARNOLD WILSON: The right hon. Gentleman, the Chairman of Ways and Means, has chided some of us for not having read the evidence. I made application at the Vote Office, and they could not find it. I made application also in the Library, and it was not there. I am told by my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) that I should have asked the Parliamentary agent for Birmingham, but I object to doing that. I have never heard a thinner speech than that of my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley. He has really given us no reasons, except that this is an aerodrome, that this is a great step forward, and that we are taking the line of the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has, by the way, been absent from his place during the whole of this Debate.

Sir P. HANNON: He was here in the early stages of the discussion.

Sir A. WILSON: So far as the arguments in favour of the Bill were concerned, but he has disappeared and has not been seen since.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The arguments in favour of the Bill were not given at the outset of the discussion; he was only in the House half an hour, and, therefore, could have heard no arguments in favour of the Bill.

Sir A. WILSON: I thank my right hon. Friend for that correction. I think that I am right in saying that he was away within half an hour and has not been back since. Since the first arguments against the Bill were presented he


has absented himself and has not been seen since. If my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley really believes that this Bill is a great advance in the development of aerodromes in this country, the Under-Secretary of State should be here to explain why he does not object now to a power to which he seems to have taken exception some months earlier. I endorse every argument used by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) in that connection. We are passing within a few days of each other two Bills dealing with an identical subject, and I can see no connection between the two. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley has twitted us who signed the Whip on our wide geographical distribution, but our principles, such as they are—and I now know for the first time that my hon. Friend attaches little weight to principles—are not based, like this group of seven Members for Birmingham, upon geographical boundaries. We claim to speak for a wider area. We can appreciate that the Birmingham Corporation might well shrink from buying more land than they need, but was there any good reason why they should not have attempted to obtain restrictive covenants for the remaining land? That is a frequent practice among landowners and local authorities, and it would cost very little indeed to acquire all the restrictive covenants they required. I do not gather that that was discussed.
The Chairman of the Private Bill Committee has explained, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means has explained, that the case for both sides was very fairly put by the counsel employed by the Birmingham Corporation. I do not doubt it for a moment, but the prosecutor for the Crown in any case in which he is engaged in the courts is also at pains to be scrupulously fair to the case for the other side, but that does not absolve the other side from the necessity of employing the very best counsel possible. There is no easier thing than to imagine that when counsel has put as fairly as he can the opposite side as he sees it, that is all there is to be said on the other side. There may be a great deal to be said on the other side.
I do not think it can be complained that we ought to have read the evidence. There is no evidence to-day in the report, of which I make no complaint, but

when I am asked to accept the blame for the Whip, for which I accept joint responsibility, I can only say that a Whip is not intended to be an argumentative document, but that it is intended to draw the attention of those Members who receive it to the existence of a controversial point and to express the hope that they will be present, not merely to vote, but to listen to the arguments for and against. We could not possibly have discussed the question of compensation, but when the Chairman of the Private Bill Committee expresses his confidence that compensation is adequately provided for in the Bill, I am bound to point out that Sub-section (2, a) of Clause 22 provides that it can be given only after
proposals for the development of that land which at the date of the claim to compensation are immediately practicable or would have been so if this Act had not been passed are prevented.
That means that for a whole series of reasons it may not be immediately practicable, but that it might very well be a reasonable expectation. I should like to ask Members on both sides of the House how they would regard their position had they owned a piece of land on which they had intended, within the next two or three years, or as soon as they could afford it, to build a small house, a small bungalow, or a small cottage?

Mr. AMERY: It is not a small cottage if it is 75 feet high.

Sir A. WILSON: There are parts of the land where it would not be possible to build a bungalow five feet high, which is only room for a very small man. It is a very limited compensation, more limited than any other kind. I am still unable to understand why the Under-Secretary for Air found it unnecessary to put these Clauses into his Bill, but thinks them so desirable when they are found in another Bill. There was some suggestion that when we who oppose the Bill talked about "being bought off" we were referring to some improper procedure. We were referring to Clause 26, which says that nothing in the Bill shall affect the London Midland and Scottish Railway.

Mr. CARTLAND: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Birmingham Corporation have made a special agreement with the London Midland and Scottish


Railway, which is far more restrictive in character than any of the proposals in this Bill?

Sir A. WILSON: That bears out my point that if you are big enough you can make terms even with the Birmingham Corporation. There are half-a-dozen persons who made terms with the Birmingham Corporation, but they are not the small men.

Mr. CARTLAND: The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) pointed out that a large number of small people have already been protected.

Sir A. WILSON: When the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol intervened, I took the precaution to see to what he was referring, and I found that it was the safeguards introduced into the Bill in respect not of small men who are owners of property but small men who are lessees of the Birmingham Corporation, already in contractual relations with the Birmingham Corporation, which on its part has taken steps to safeguard its tenants as shown in the documents now put before the House. I am entirely unmoved by the references to W. and J. George and other obscure men, who may, for all I know, be very important persons, as they have a Clause to themselves. But I do not want to deal with purely detailed matters. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means said, we should deal only with the principle, and the principle is simply this, that we are now depriving a small group of His Majesty's lieges of a reasonable expectation of the enjoyment of land which they had in prospect until this Bill appeared, and which they will not have if this Bill is passed. They had them also under powers given in a Bill on the subject passed by this House during the present Session.
It has not been found necessary to give these powers to any other municipality, but we have been urged by all those who have spoken to give them to Birmingham solely upon the ground that Birmingham is a great and good Corporation, which was created by great and good men, is represented to-day by great and good men and which will give a lead to England—as it well may do—in the future. But I submit that those are very weak grounds on which to commend a Bill of this sort to the House.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. MUFF: I intervene for a minute or two to justify the position of corporations which are wanting to buy land for aerodromes under reasonable conditions and without vexatious opposition either from certain Members of this House or any other body. Birmingham is entitled to gain from the experience of corporations like Bradford or Hull, which have spent considerable sums because they were told that it was in the national interest to erect civil aerodromes in various parts of the country. These municipal authorities, because they have not been adequately protected in the past, have laid themselves open to the criticism that they have been acquiring what may be called white elephants, and I think the Birmingham Corporation are entitled to be congratulated on trying to foresee any difficulties in the future.
The hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) indulged in an admirable exhibition of shadow boxing. He invited the House to agree that the Birmingham Corporation should buy 1,700 acres of land, whether that land was required by them or not. Indeed, the whole of the opposition during this Debate has made me wonder why we had the Debate at all, after the discussion upon Second Reading. Fortunately, we need not inquire too deeply into the motives of those who are opposing this Bill, and I do not propose so to do. As one who has spent a few years in municipal administration and entirely apart from party politics, but on the grounds of public policy and public utility, I think that the Birmingham Corporation or any similar corporation, whatever its political complexion may be, is entitled to come to this House and is entitled to common justice.
The Chairman of Ways and Means, in that admirable discourse he gave to us on procedure, has amply justified every Member going into the Lobby to give Birmingham the Bill which it wants. I cannot for the life of me understand the motives of the Members who signed the Whip against the Bill. I can understand the motive, perhaps, of the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Levy) and of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams). They appear to be almost the lineal successors or the in-carnation


of Chu-Chin-Chow. I shall not detain the House longer, but I wish to say without equivocation or evasion or mental reservation that I can go into the Lobby to support the Birmingham Corporation, and I trust that they will set their Bill.

Sir P. HANNON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 75.

Division No. 319.]
AYES.
[9.53 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Holdsworth, H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Holmes, J. S.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Dobbie, W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dodd, J. S.
Hopkin, D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Doland, G. F.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Adamson, W. M.
Donner, P. W.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Drewe, C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Duggan, H. J.
Hulbert, N. J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Hunter, T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Balniel, Lord
Ede, J. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Banfield, J. W.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Jackson, Sir H.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jagger, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
James, Wing-commander A. W.


Barr, J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Batey, J.
Ellis, Sir G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
John, W.


Bellenger, F.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Benson, G.
Errington, E.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Bevan, A.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kelly, W. T.


Blair, Sir R.
Findlay, Sir E.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Bossom, A. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Boulton, W. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Frankel, D.
Kimball, L.


Brass, Sir W.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Kirkwood, D.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Broad, F. A.
Gallacher, W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Latham, Sir P.


Bromfield, W.
Gardner, B. W.
Lathan, G.


Brooke, W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawson, J. J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leckie, J. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gibbins, J.
Lee, F.


Bull, B. B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Burke, W. A.
Gledhill, G.
Leonard, W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Goldie, N. B.
Leslie, J. R.


Cape, T.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Lloyd, G. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Cassells, T.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Loftus, P. C.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Lunn, W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Grenfell, D. R.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Chater, D.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cluse, W. S.
Groves, T. E.
McEntee, V. La T.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
McGhee, H. G.


Cocks, F. S.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
McKie, J. H.


Colman, N. C. D.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
MacLaren, A.


Compton, J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Maclean, N.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Maitland, A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mander, G. le M.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Cove, W. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Marklew, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Harbord, A.
Mathers, G.


Crooke, J. S.
Hardie, G. D.
Maxton, J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Daggar, G.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Messer, F.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Montague, F.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Dawson, Sir P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Day, H.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Morgan, R. H.


De Chair, S. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)




Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Salt, E. W.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Muff, G.
Salter, Dr. A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Munro, P.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Oliver, G. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Savery, Servington
Thorne, W.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Scott, Lord William
Thurtle, E.


Paling, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Tinker, J. J.


Parkinson, J. A.
Selley, H. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Peat, C. U.
Sexton, T. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Penny, Sir G.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Turton, R. H.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Viant, S. P.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Walkden, A. G.


Plugge, L. F.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Potts, J.
Short, A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Silkin, L.
Watkins, F. C.


Price, M. P.
Silverman, S. S.
Watson, W. McL.


Pritt, D. N.
Simmonds, O. E.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Procter, Major H. A.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wells, S. R.


Radford, E. A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Welsh, J. C.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Westwood, J.


Rankin, R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
White, H. Graham


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Whiteley, W.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Remer, J. R.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Ritson, J.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Wragg, H.


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Spens, W. P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)



Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rowson, G.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Sir Patrick Hannon and Mr. Eales.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)





NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Pilkington, R.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Fildes, Sir H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fleming, E. L.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Furness, S. N.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Blaker, Sir R.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb-rw'll, N. W.)
Tichfield, Marquess of


Cary, R. A.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Touche, G. C.


Channon, M.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Keeling, E. H.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Lees-Jones, J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, O.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lyons, A. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Nall, Sir J.
Wise, A. R.


Eastwood, J. F.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Owen, Major G.



Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Patrick, C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elliston, G. S.
Petherick, M.
Sir J. Mellor and Mr. Levy.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 124.

Division No. 320.]
AYES.
[10.6 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Aske, Sir R. W.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Bevan, A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Birchall, Sir J. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Banfield, J. W.
Blindell, Sir J.


Adamson, W. M.
Barnes, A. J.
Boulton, W. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Barr, J.
Boyce, H. Leslie


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Batey, J.
Brass, Sir W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.




Broad, F. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Penny, Sir G.


Bromfield, W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brooke, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pilkington, R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Potts, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hannah, I. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bull, B. B.
Harbord, A.
Price, M. P.


Burke, W. A.
Hardie, G. D.
Pritt, D. N.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Radford, E. A.


Cape, T.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Cassells, T.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Remer, J. R.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Channon, M.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Charleton, H. C.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chater, D.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rowson, G.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Cocks, F. S.
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Salter, Dr. A.


Compton, J.
Jackson, Sir H.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jagger, J.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith S.)
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Sandys, E. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Selley, H. R.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
John, W.
Sexton, T. M.


Crooke, J. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Culverwell, C. T.
Kelly, W. T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Short, A.


Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Silkin, L.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Silverman, S. S.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, D.
Simmonds, O. E.


Dawson, Sir P.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Day, H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


De Chair, S. S.
Latham, Sir P.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


De la Bère, R.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dodd, J. S.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Doland, G. F.
Leonard, W.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Drewe, C.
Leslie, J. R.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Spens, W. P.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Loftus, P. C.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Ede, J. C.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Entwistle, C. F.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sutcliffe, H.


Errington, E.
McGhee, H. G.
Tate, Mavis C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacLaren, A.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Findlay, Sir E.
Maclean, N.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maitland, A.
Thorne, W.


Frankel, D.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thurtle, E.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Marklew, E.
Tinker, J. J.


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G.
Turton, R H.


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Viant, S. P.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Walkden, A. G.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messer, F.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Warrender, Sir V.


Gibbins, J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Watkins, F. C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Gledhill, G.
Montague, F.
Welsh, J. C.


Goldie, N. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Westwood, J.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
White, H. Graham


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Whiteley, W.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Muff, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Munro, P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Wragg, H.


Grimston, R. V.
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.



Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Peat, C. U.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir Patrick Hannon and Mr. Eales.







NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Petherick, M.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Furness, S. N.
Plugge, L. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Procter, Major H. A.


Assheton, R.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Balniel, Lord
Gower, Sir R. V.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Rankin, R.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Beit, Sir A. L.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rwll, N. W.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Blair, Sir R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Blaker, Sir R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Savery, Servington


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Holdsworth, H.
Scott, Lord William


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Holmes, J. S.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hulbert, N. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Cary, R. A.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Kimball, L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Lees-Jones, J.
Touche, G. C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, O.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Cross, R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Donner, P. W.
Lyons, A. M.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duggan, H. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Wells, S. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
McKie, J. H.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Eastwood, J. F.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Eckersley, P. T.
Morgan, R. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Elliston, G. S.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Nall, Sir J.
Wise, A. R.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fildes, Sir H.
Owen, Major G.



Fleming, E. L.
Patrick, C. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Sir J. Mellor and Mr. Levy.

Bill to be read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

REPORT [27th July].

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the Resolution, 'That a sum, not exceeding £466,702, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, including grants for

land improvement, agricultural education, research, and marketing, a grant under the Agricultural Credits (Scotland) Act, 1929, and certain grants in aid.'

It being after Ten of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the Report of the Resolution under consideration.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

The House divided: Ayes, 312: Noes, 137.

Division No. 321.]
AYES.
[10.17 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Balniel, Lord
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Boyce, H. Leslie


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Brass, Sir W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Anstruther-Gray. W. J.
Beit, Sir A. L.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Assheton, R.
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bird, Sir R. B.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Blair, Sir R.
Bull, B. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Blaker, Sir R.
Burton, Col. H. W.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Blindell, Sir J.
Butler, R. A.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Bossom, A. C.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Boulton, W. W.
Cartland, J. R. H.




Carver, Major W. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Cary, R. A.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hanbury, Sir C.
Patrick, C. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Peat, C. U.


Channon, H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Penny, Sir G.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Harbord, A.
Petherick, M.


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Pilkington, R.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Plugge, L. F.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Procter, Major H. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Radford, E. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Holdsworth, H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rankin, R.


Cranborne, Viscount
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crooke, J. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Hulbert, N. J.
Remer, J. R.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hunter, T.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Culverwell, C. T.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jackson, Sir H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Dawson, Sir P.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


De Chair, S. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


De la Bère, R.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Salmon, Sir I.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Salt, E. W.


Dodd, J. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Doland, G. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Donner, P. W.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Sandys, E. D.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Kimball, L.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Savery, Servington


Drewe, C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Scott, Lord William


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Latham, Sir P.
Selley, H. R.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Duggan, H. J.
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Dunglass, Lord
Lees-Jones, J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Dunne, P. R. R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Simmonds, O. E.


Eales, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Eastwood, J. F.
Levy, T.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lewis, O.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smithers, Sir W.


Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Elliston, G. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Entwistle, C. F.
Lyons, A. M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Errington, E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Spender-Clay Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Spens, W. P.


Fildes, Sir H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Fleming, E. L.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
McKie, J. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Furness, S. N.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Maitland, A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Gledhill, G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Sutcliffe, H.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Goldie, N. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis C.


Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morgan, R. H.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Touche, G. C.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Turton, R. H.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Munro, P.
Wakefield, W. W.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Nall, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.







Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wise, A. R.


Warrender, Sir V.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Waterhouse, Captain C.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
Wragg, H.


Wayland, Sir W. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord



Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wells, S. R.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert




Ward and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, D.
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jagger, J.
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Cape, T.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cassells, T.
John, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Chater, D.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Compton, J.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Lathan, G.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lunn, W.
Watson, W. McL.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Welsh, J. C.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. Graham


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marklew, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot, D. M.
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.



Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Gibbins, J.
Muff, G.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Classes I to IX of the Civil Estimates, the Navy Estimates, the Army Estimates, the Air Estimates, and the Revenue Departments Estimates."

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1936.

CLASS I.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class I of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS II.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class II of the Civil Estimates.

The House divided: Ayes, 317; Noes, 140.

Division No. 322.]
AYES.
[10.29 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Aske, Sir R. W.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Assheton, R.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Atholl, Duchess of
Balniel, Lord




Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Entwistle, C. F.
Lyons, A. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Errington, E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacDonald Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Bernays, R. H.
Fildes, Sir H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Fleming, E. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Blair, Sir R.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Blaker, Sir R.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
McKie, J. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Bossom, A. C.
Furness, S. N.
Maitland, A.


Boulton, W. W.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Maxwell, S. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gledhill, G.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Brass, Sir W.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Goldie, N. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.


Bull, B. B.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Morgan, R. H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Butler, R. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Carver, Major W. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Munro, P.


Cary, R. A.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Nall, Sir J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hanbury, Sir C.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Hannah, I. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Channon, M.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Harbord, A.
Peat, C. U.


Christie, J. A.
Hartington, Marquess of
Penny, Sir G.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Petherick, M.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir G. P.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pilkington, R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Plugge, L. F.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Holdsworth, H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Holmes, J. S.
Radford, E. A.


Courthope, Cot. Sir G. L.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hopkinson, A.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Crooke, J. S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rankin, R.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crossley, A. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hulbert, N. J.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham


Culverwell, C. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hunter, T.
Remer, J. R.


Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Dawson, Sir P.
Jackson, Sir H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


De Chair, S. S.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)


De la Bère, R.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Dodd, J. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Doland, G. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Salmon, Sir I.


Donner, P. W.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Salt, E. W.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Kimball, L.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Drewe, C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Sandys, E. D.


Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Latham, Sir P.
Savery, Servington


Dugdale, Major T. L.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Scott, Lord William


Duggan, H. J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Selley, H. R.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Leckie, J. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Dunglass, Lord
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Dunne, P. R. R.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Eales, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Eastwood, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Eckersley, P. T.
Levy, T.
Simmonds, O. E.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Elliston, G. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Smithers, Sir W.







Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Sutcliffe, H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Tate, Mavis C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wells, S. R.


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Spens, W. P.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Tichfield, Marquess of
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Touche, G. C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.
Wise, A. R.


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Turton, R. H.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Wakefield, W. W.
Wragg, H.


Strickland, Captain W. F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.



Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'tnw'h)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Warrender, Sir V.
Ward and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Potts, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Hardie, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Salter, Dr. A.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Brooke, W.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
John, W.
Silkin, L.


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Cassells, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chater, D.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Compton, J.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Thorne, W.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Welsh, J. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Westwood, J.


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mander, G. le M.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marklew, E.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gibbins, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.

CLASS III.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class III of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IV.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of Class IV of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS V.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class V of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VI.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of Class VI of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class VII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS VIII.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution

reported in respect of Class VIII of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

CLASS IX.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of Class IX of the Civil Estimates,
put, and agreed to.

NAVY ESTIMATES, 1936.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Navy Estimates,

The House divided: Ayes, 326; Noes, 109.

Division No. 323.]
AYES.
[10.42 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Colman, N. C. D.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Gledhill, G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cranborne, Viscount
Goldie, N. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crooke, J. S.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Assheton, R.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Atholl, Duchess of
Crossley, A. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Crowder, J. F. E.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Culverwell, C. T.
Grimston, R. V.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balniel, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dawson, Sir P.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Baxter, A. Beverley
De Chair, S. S.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
De la Bère, R.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Guy, J. C. M.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Dodd, J. S.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Doland, G. F.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Donner, P. W.
Hannah, I. C.


Blair, Sir R.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Blaker, Sir R.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Harbord, A.


Blindell, Sir J.
Drewe, C.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hartington, Marquess of


Boulton, W. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Duggan, H. J.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmou'h)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eales, J. F.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Eastwood, J. F.
Holdsworth, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Eckersley, P. T.
Holmes, J. S.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hopkinson, A.


Bull, B. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Elliston, G. S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Butler, R. A.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Entwistle, C. F.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Errington, E.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Cary, R. A.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Hulbert, N. J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fildes, Sir H.
Hunter, T.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Findlay, Sir E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Channon, H.
Fleming, E. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Foot, D. M.
Jackson, Sir H.


Christie, J. A.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Furness, S. N.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Keeling, E. H.




Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Owen, Major G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Patrick, C. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Kimball, L.
Peat, C. U.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Penny, Sir G.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, F.)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Latham, Sir P.
Petherick, M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Pilkington, R.
Spens, W. P.


Leckie, J. A.
Plugge, L. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Leech, Dr J. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lees-Jones, J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Radford, E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Lewis, O.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Liddall, W. S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lloyd, G. W.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Rankin, R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Loftus, P. C.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Lyons, A. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Touche, G. C.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


McKie, J. H.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Turton, R. H.


Maitland, A.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wakefield, W. W.


Mander, G. le M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Maxwell, S. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Salmon, Sir I.
Warrender, Sir V.


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Salt, E. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sandys, E. D.
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
White, H. Graham


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Savery, Servington
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Scott, Lord William
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Morgan, R. H.
Selley, H. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wise, A. R.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Munro, P.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wragg, H.


Nall, Sir J.
Simmonds, O. E.



Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Ward and Mr. Cross.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leonard, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Frankel, D.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gallacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.


Banfield, J. W.
Garro Jones, G. M.
MacLaren, A.


Barr, J.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N.


Batey, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marklew, E.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mathers, G.


Bevan, A.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maxton, J.


Broad, F. A.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.


Bromfield, W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Milner, Major J.


Brooke, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hardie, G. D.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Muff, G.


Cape, T.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Naylor, T. E.


Cassells, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Hopkin, D.
Paling, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Jagger, J.
Parkinson, J. A.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Potts, J.


Daggar, G.
John, W.
Pritt, D. N.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. A.


Day, H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Short, A.







Silverman, S. S.
Thurtle, E.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Tinker, J. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watkins, F. C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Sorensen, R. W.
Watson, W. McL.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Welsh, J. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Westwood, J.



Thorne, W.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr, Charleton and Mr. Groves.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1936.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions

reported in respect of the Army Estimates (including Royal Ordnance Factories Estimate).

The House divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 109.

Division No. 324.]
AYES.
[10.51 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Crossley, A. C.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hamilton, Sir G. C.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Culverwell, C. T.
Hanbury, Sir C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Hannah, I. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Davison, Sir W. H.
Harbord, A.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dawson, Sir P.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Apsley, Lord
De Chair, S. S.
Hartington, Marquess of


Aske, Sir R. W.
De la Bère, R.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Assheton, R.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dodd, J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Doland, G. F.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Donner, P. W.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Holdsworth, H.


Balniel, Lord
Drewe, C.
Holmes, J. S.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hopkinson, A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Duggan, H. J.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bernays, R. H.
Dunglass, Lord
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Eales, J. F.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Blair, Sir R.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hulbert, N. J.


Blaker, Sir R.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Blindell, Sir J.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hunter, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir G.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Elliston, G. S.
Jackson, Sir H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Jones, Sir G. W. H (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Brass, Sir W.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Entwistle, C. F.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Errington, E.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Fildes, Sir H.
Kimball, L.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Bull, B. B.
Fleming, E. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Foot, D. M.
Latham, Sir P.


Butler, R. A.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Leckie, J. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Furness, S. N.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Cary, R. A.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Lees-Jones, J.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lewis, O.


Channon, M.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Liddall, W. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Gledhill, G.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Christie, J. A.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lloyd, G. W.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Goldie, N. B.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Goodman, Col. A. W.



Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gower, Sir R. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Colman, N. C. D.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Lyons, A. M.


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
McCorquodale, M. S.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Grlgg, Sir E. W. M.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Grimston, R. V.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gritten, W. G. Howard
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Crooke, J. S.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
McKie, J. H.


Cross, R. H.
Guy, J. C. M.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)




Maitland, A.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Mander, G. le M.
Remer, J. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sutcliffe, H.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis C.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Morgan, R. H.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Salt, E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Touche, G. C.


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Munro, P.
Sandys, E. D.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Turton, R. H.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Savery, Servington
Wakefield, W. W.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Scott, Lord William
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Owen, Major G.
Selley, H. R.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Patrick, C. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Peat, C. U.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Warrender, Sir V.


Penny, Sir G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Petherick, M.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Wells, S. R.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Simmonds, O. E.
White, H. Graham


Pilkington, R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Plugge, L. F.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Procter, Major H. A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Radford, E. A.
Smithers, Sir W.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ramsbotham, H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wise, A. R.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Rankin, R.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wragg, H.


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.



Ratnbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Rayner, Major R. H.
Spens, W. P.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Waterhouse.


Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Muff, G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parkinson, J. A.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rowson, G.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Salter, Dr. A.


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Sexton, T. M.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Silverman, S. S.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
John, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cassells, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Ede, J. C.
Maclean, N.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marklew, E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Frankel, D.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)



Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.

AIR ESTIMATES, 1936.

Question put,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolutions reported in respect of the Air Estimates.

The House divided: Ayes, 322; Noes, 109.

Division No. 325.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
De Chair, S. S.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
De la Bère, R.
Hopkinson, A.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir R. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Dodd, J. S.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Doland, G. F.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Apsley, Lord
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hulbert, N. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Drewe, C.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Assheton, R.
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)
Hunter, T.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, H. J.
Jackson, Sir H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Duncan, J. A. L.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Dunglass, Lord
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Dunne, P. R. R.
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Balniel, Lord
Eales, J. F.
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Eastwood, J. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Eckersley, P. T.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Ellis, Sir G.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Elliston, G. S.
Kimball, L.


Bernays, R. H.
Emmott, C. E. C. G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Emrys- Evans, P. V.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Blair, Sir R.
Entwistle, C. F.
Latham, Sir P.


Blaker, Sir R.
Errington, E.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Blindell, Sir J.
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Leckie, J. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lees-Jones, J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Findlay, Sir E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fleming, E. L.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Foot, D. M.
Lewis, O.


Brass, Sir W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Liddall, W. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Lloyd, G. W.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Furness, S. N.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Loftus, P. C.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lyons, A. M.


Bull, B. B.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Butler, R. A.
Gledhill, G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gluckstein, L. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Goldie, N. B.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Cary, R. A.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Gower, Sir R. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
McKie, J. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Maitland, A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mander, G. le M.


Christie, J. A.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Grimston, R. V.
Maxwell, S. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Colman, N. C. D.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Guy, J. C. M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Hanbury, Sir C.
Morgan, R. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hannah, I. C.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Crooke, J. S.
Harbord, A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hartington, Marquess of
Munro, P.


Cross, R. H.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Nall, Sir J.


Crossley, A. C.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
O'Connor, Sir Terrence J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Culverwell, C. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Owen, Major G.


Davies, Major Sir G. S. (Yeovil)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Patrick, C. M.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Peat, C. U.


Dawson, Sir P.
Holmes, J. S.
Penny, Sir G.




Perkins, W. R. D.
Sandys, E. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Pilkington, R.
Savery, Servington
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Plugge, L. F.
Scott, Lord William
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Selley, H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Procter, Major H. A.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Radford, E. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Turton, R. H.


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Ramsbotham, H.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Simmonds, O. E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rankin, R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Warrender, Sir V.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smithers, Sir W.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Reid, Captain A. Cunningham
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wells, S. R.


Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)
White, H. Graham


Remer, J. R.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Spens, W. P.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Wise, A. R.


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
Wragg, H.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)



Salmon, Sir I.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Salt, E. W.
Sutcliffe, H.
Mr. James Stuart and Captain


Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Waterhouse.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Tate, Mavis C.





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Potts, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pritt, D. N.


Barr, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Batey, J.
Hardie, G. D.
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Hills, A. (Pontetract)
Shinwell, E.


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Short, A.


Brooke, W.
Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cassells, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sorensen, R. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Dobbie, W.
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Maclean, N.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maxton, J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Messer, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Garro Jones, G. M.
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. John and Mr. Mathers.


Question put, and agreed to.

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS ESTIMATES, 1936.

Question,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in the outstanding Resolution reported in respect of the Revenue Departments Estimates.
put, and agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [27TH JULY].

Resolution reported,
That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, the sum of £389,071,026 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United: Kingdom.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. W. S. Morrison.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL,

"to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand, nine hundred and thirty-seven, and to appropriate the Supplies granted in this Session of Parliament," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 171.]

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES (IMPORT DUTIES ACT, 1932).

11.16 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1936, dated the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.
This batch of Import Duties Orders is of a very varied description. They range from pile fabrics to track laying tractors. They are in common form. Perhaps the House would think it convenient to follow its usual course of discussing the whole batch, leaving it open to divide against any particular Order at a later stage. The only Order on which it might be convenient to say a word would be that dealing with track laying tractors. The others offer no point of particular interest. The ordinary wheeled tractor is already subject to an Import Duty of 33⅓ per cent. as a motor car. Those that are used for agricultural purposes are subject to an ad valorem duty of 15 per cent., and those used in public works are subject to a duty of 20 per cent. It has been deemed wise by the Advisory Committee to recommend, and the Treasury has approved the recommendation, that these track laying tractors should be subject to the duty of 33⅓ per cent. The only other point I would mention is that spare parts of tractors are to have a duty imposed on them of 15 per cent. The reason for that is that there are still in existence a certain number

of foreign made tractors, which we hope will be replaced in due course by British made tractors, the prospects of the trade being sufficiently good to warrant that assumption. Meantime it is thought wise to leave the duty on spare parts unchanged.

11.19 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: While one does not feel at this time like dealing with the substance of this Order, I think it only fair for the Opposition to enter a protest. Periodically we get four, five or six Import Duty Orders after 11 p.m. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary one of these days will find himself losing a night's sleep dealing with Orders of real substance which might very well have been dealt with long before 11 p.m. In this case the Financial Secretary informs the House that these Orders range from pile fabrics to track laying tractors. They are very comprehensive in their significance and effect. I had expected the president of the National Farmers' Union and all those hon. Members who are so vociferous in demanding larger and still larger subsidies for agriculture would have been in their places to-night to argue against a duty being imposed upon agricultural implements. The Import Duties Advisory Committee, after reviewing the case, declare, as they usually do, that:
Any increase in farming costs which may result from such a duty would be negligible in amount and will we hope prove only temporary.
I see no objection to imposing a duty upon agricultural implements so long as that is cancelled out by plenty of direct and indirect subsidies granted to agriculture. It seems to me absurd that on everything that agriculturists are called upon to use for the performance of their function of growing food the Government should see fit to impose a duty. Then, the next day, we find ourselves granting a subsidy upon wheat, milk, beef or some other commodity to cancel out the effect of the multiplicity of duties imposed upon agricultural products and machinery. I do not feel disposed at this late hour to prolong the Debate by going into the details or possible effect of a duty upon track-laying tractors, which are mostly used by agriculturists in this country. I want to say to the Patronage Secretary that he has been somewhat of a villain during the last several months in the way


in which he has imposed a multiplicity of Import Duties Orders upon the House when the House is not in a fit state to debate intelligently. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is that a charge?"] I mean, of course, that the Refreshment Department has catered fairly well for the solids, and I make no reference to the possible provision of liquids, but I am sure that physically most hon. Members do not feel in a position at this late hour to deal with the complexities of Import Duties which may or may not have an effect upon any isolated or any collective industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman in submitting the Orders to the House is imposing a duty upon cycles or cyclists, and if the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Moseley Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Hannon), which is particularly interested in the manufacture of cycles, had not been absorbed in his Birmingham aeroplanes Bill, the chances are that he would have been here as a violent opponent of the Financial Secretary in regard to this proposal. These Orders are of widespread significance, and if they were given the attention they really deserved, I am afraid that hon. Members would not be able to return to their homes at 11.30. I want, therefore, to warn the Patronage Secretary that, whether it is a duty upon track-laying tractors, or a duty imposed upon 3,000,000 cyclists in this country, or upon dried chamomile flowers, or whatever it may be, he ought to have more sympathy for the general public than he appears to have. I suggest that, when five Orders of this description are to be dealt with by the House, they ought to be brought before the House before 11.20 p.m. and, unless there is a change in the next Parliamentary Session, I hope that hon. Gentlemen sitting in all parts of the House, and particularly agricultural Members, will keep a sharp eye on the Patronage Secretary, and teach him a real lesson by an all-night sitting.

11.25 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: The night is yet young, and it is very tempting to some of us who represent agricultural constituencies to get such little credit as we occasionally can by opposing an Order of this kind, which will to some extent, according to the report of the Committee, though only for a time, affect agricultural prices. On the other hand,

we have had a heavy week, and there are signs of sleepiness in the House. Therefore, I content myself, in a sentence, with defining our attitude. We are inclined to be against subsidies, even if they help agriculture, and we are against duties when they hinder agriculture, but we do not think there is much to be gained by discussing the Order now and on the whole, bad as it is, we will let it go.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. MESSER: I desire on this occasion, as on the last occasion, to say that the House is not being treated fairly. There are those who have some interest in the specific bodies, but they do not desire to inconvenience the House. I should like to draw attention to Order No. 18, and I should have liked an opportunity to deal with it in detail. No case has been made out for it either in the speech of the Financial Secretary or in the report of the Committee. I had hoped we would have had an opportunity of dealing with important business of this kind, but I trust we shall have such an opportunity on a future occasion.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 15) Order, 1936, dated the ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said ninth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 16) Order, 1936, dated the sixteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said sixteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 18) Older, 1936, dated the twenty-third day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-third day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 19) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-third day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import


Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-third day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (No. 20) Order, 1936, dated the twenty-seventh day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-seventh day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Mossley and Saddleworth Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 13th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Oswestry Gas Light and Coke Company, Limited, which was presented on the 6th day of July and published, be approved, subject to the following modifications:—
Clause 30, page 10, line 32, at end, insert "or to any depot of a railway company.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Sunderland Gas Company, which was presented on the 13th day of July and published, be approved.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Wandsworth and District Gas Company, which was presented on the 13th day of July and published, be approved."—[Captain Hudson.]

Orders of the Day — HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered, put, and agreed to."—[Mr. Roland Robinson.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Power of local authority to levy rate for advertising purposes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, at the end, insert:
(2) This section shall apply to Scotland subject to the following modifications—

(a) 'burgh' shall be substituted for 'borough' and references to urban districts shall not apply.
(b) Expenses incurred by a town council under this section shall be defrayed out of such rate payable by owners and occupiers in equal proportions as the council may determine."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment raises a question of Privilege.

Mr. ROLAND ROBINSON: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As the Bill was drafted, it empowered town councils in Scotland to spend money for the purposes of advertising, but in order to raise money in Scotland, they require express power to defray the expenditure out of rates. The Amendment gives them that power, and the recommendation is in accordance with the usual custom in Scotland.

Mr. SPEAKER: A special entry will be made.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.